2018 (8) TMI 739 - HC - Indian Laws

Suspending the execution of sentence - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Held that - Hon ble Supreme Court in case titled as Stanny Felix Pinto v. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2001 (1) TMI 878 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held that a pre condition for suspending the execution of sentence, of imprisonment imposed upon the convict, it being not imperative for the Court, to, direct the convict to deposit the entire fine amount/compensation amount, yet imposition, qua depositing of, some reasonable per centum thereof, solitarily being sufficient, to, enable the Court, while excising its jurisdiction, to suspend the execution of sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the convict, to hence make an apposite order qua its execution being suspended. In aftermath, subject to deposit of 10% of the fine amount within four weeks from today, if not already deposited, and subject to the petitioner s furnishing within four weeks, from today, personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, and also with an undertaking therein to (a) appear in the Court as and when called upon to do so (b) and in case the instant Revision is dismissed, the petitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court for receiving the sentence, thereupon the operation/execution of the sentence recorded on 16.11.2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No.1, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in criminal case No. 138/3 of 2014. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Imposition of fine as compensation towards the complainant.
3. Compliance with relevant judgments regarding fine and compensation.
4. Suspension of sentence and conditions for remitting fine amount.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involves the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the learned trial Court. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine double the cheque amounts, with further imprisonment in default of payment. The judgment reflects the legal consequences of committing an offence under this Act, including the prescribed penalties for dishonoring a cheque.

2. The learned Magistrate, in compliance with Section 138 of the Act, imposed a fine double the cheque amount on the petitioner. Additionally, the Magistrate ordered the fine amount to be paid as compensation to the complainant. This dual imposition of fine as both a punitive measure and compensation aligns with the legal framework established by relevant case laws, ensuring that the complainant is adequately compensated for the financial loss suffered due to the dishonored cheque.

3. The judgment references a Supreme Court case (2013 (4) Civil Court Cases 689) to support the Magistrate's decision to order the fine amount as compensation to the complainant. It emphasizes the discretion vested in the Court to determine the sentence based on various factors such as the nature of the transaction, accused's conduct, and the cheque amount involved. The Court's power to levy a fine is limited to twice the cheque amount, and any compensation must be paid out of the fine amount imposed, following a two-stage process.

4. Regarding the suspension of the sentence and conditions for remitting the fine amount, the judgment cites another Supreme Court case (AIR 2001 SC 659) to establish the legality and appropriateness of imposing conditions for remittance of a portion of the fine as a pre-condition for suspending the sentence. The judgment outlines specific conditions for the petitioner to suspend the execution of the sentence, including depositing a percentage of the fine amount, furnishing personal and surety bonds, and complying with court directives within stipulated timelines.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal implications of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the dual purpose of imposing fines as both a punitive measure and compensation for the complainant. It underscores the importance of following legal precedents and establishing clear conditions for suspending the execution of sentences in such cases.