2012 (6) TMI 915 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Adequacy of sentence imposed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872.

The judgment pertains to a criminal revision application challenging the sentence imposed by the trial court on the respondent for an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872. The respondent had borrowed a hand loan, and the cheque issued for repayment was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant demanded payment, but the respondent failed to comply, leading to the conviction. The trial court sentenced the respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 and face imprisonment in default. The complainant argued that this sentence was inadequate, citing a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of proper sentencing in such cases.

The complainant contended that the unpaid amount covered by the dishonoured cheque justified a more substantial sentence than the one imposed by the trial court. The complainant highlighted the need to uphold the objectives of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872, and referred to a Supreme Court case to support the argument for a stricter penalty. The complainant urged the court to correct the sentencing error through the criminal revision application.

The court examined the facts and submissions, noting the respondent's plea for leniency based on personal circumstances. The trial court had considered these factors and imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 3,000 fine or two months' imprisonment. The complainant did not dispute the mitigating factors presented by the respondent, which influenced the trial court's decision. The court observed that the complainant's cordial relationship with the respondent also played a role in seeking a minimal sentence.

Considering the objectives of penal provisions for dishonour of cheques, the court emphasized the need for sentences that align with the legislative intent. The court highlighted the importance of cheque credibility and the assurance of payment to enhance trust in cheque usage. The court found that the trial court had overlooked these aspects in sentencing the respondent. Consequently, the court modified the sentence, ordering the respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 28,000, face four months' imprisonment in default, and directing Rs. 25,000 to be paid to the complainant upon fine realization. The court also canceled the respondent's bail bond and issued a warrant for the respondent's arrest, disposing of the criminal revision application accordingly.