2014 (7) TMI 1364 - SC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of three Cheques - since the Respondent has undergone one year's sentence, he is not willing to pay any amount to the complainant-firm - section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT - There are substance in the submission of learned Counsel that the High Court has shown undue leniency to the Respondent. No reasons have been assigned by the High Court for this approach. This Court has on several occasions cautioned the courts that undue leniency should not be shown to the accused facing charges under Section 138 of the NI Act - It is not the case of the Respondent that he has paid any amount to the complainant-firm during the pendency of these cases. He has shown scant regard to this Court's wishes. The amount involved is about ₹ 14,74,753/-. The Respondent should not have been, therefore, given a flea-bite sentence - the High Court should not have shown leniency to the Respondent. Question of concurrency - HELD THAT - It is clear from the averments made in the complaints and the judgments of the trial court and lower appellate court that the cheques in question do not relate to one single transaction - the impugned order is set aside. The impugned order are set aside and the order of the trial court restored in all the three cases - Since the enhanced fine amounts have already been paid, there is no need to pass any order in that connection - Since the Respondent has already been released from jail after having served one year of imprisonment, he shall be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Reduction of sentence by the High Court and grant of concurrency.
3. Failure to deposit additional fine and consequences.
4. Discretionary powers of the court in sentencing.
5. Rectification of errors by the Supreme Court.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the conviction of the Respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for dishonoring three cheques issued to the complainant-firm. The trial court sentenced the Respondent to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine in each case. The Sessions Court upheld the conviction, leading to three revision applications by the Respondent in the High Court.

2. The High Court, while maintaining the conviction, reduced the sentence to one year of rigorous imprisonment in each case and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Additionally, the Respondent was directed to deposit an extra fine amount, failing which the petitions would be deemed dismissed. The complainant-firm challenged this order, arguing that leniency was not justified due to the nature of the transactions.

3. The issue of failure to deposit the additional fine arose, but it was confirmed that the Respondent had complied with the High Court's directive. However, during the Supreme Court proceedings, the Respondent expressed an inability to pay any further amount, indicating a lack of cooperation and disregard for the court's directions.

4. The Supreme Court, considering the conduct of the Respondent and the lack of justification for leniency by the High Court, emphasized the importance of imposing appropriate sentences in cases under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Court cited previous judgments cautioning against showing undue leniency and highlighted the need to uphold the legislative intent behind such provisions.

5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, restoring the trial court's sentences in all three cases. As the enhanced fine amounts had been paid and the Respondent had served one year of imprisonment, the Court ordered the remaining sentence to be served. The decision aimed to rectify the errors made by the High Court and uphold the principles of justice delivery in such cases.