2019 (8) TMI 1289 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - legally enforceable debt or not - offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act - HELD THAT - There is no illegality, impropriety or error in the finding that the revision petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. There is nothing to interfere with the conviction of the revision petitioner in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The conviction entered against the revision petitioner by the courts below under Section 138 of the N. I. Act is confirmed. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/accused by the courts below is modified and the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. Since the first respondent/complainant has received the entire amount due to him, no sentence of fine is imposed on the revision petitioner. Revision allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Examination of evidence and documents presented during the trial.
3. Appeal to the Court of Session against the conviction and sentence.
4. Review of judgments by the High Court.
5. Settlement reached between the parties affecting the sentence imposed.

Analysis:
The case involved the revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine. The accused appealed to the Court of Session, which upheld the conviction and sentence. The High Court reviewed the judgments and found no errors in the lower courts' decisions regarding the offense committed by the accused under Section 138 of the Act.

During the trial, the complainant presented evidence, including documents, and was examined. In contrast, the accused did not provide any evidence in his defense. The Magistrate concluded that the complainant had proven the issuance of the cheque to discharge a debt, leading to the accused's conviction and sentencing.

The High Court, after considering the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, found no grounds to interfere with the conviction of the accused. However, a significant development occurred during the hearing when the complainant informed the court that he had received the entire amount due to him, expressing satisfaction and no objection to modifying the sentence against the accused. The complainant filed an affidavit confirming the settlement reached between the parties.

In light of the settlement between the parties and the complainant's satisfaction with the received amount, the High Court modified the sentence imposed on the accused. The conviction under Section 138 of the Act was confirmed, but the sentence was altered to imprisonment till the rising of the court, with no fine imposed due to the complainant receiving the full amount owed.

The High Court directed the immediate release of the accused if he was in jail executing the previous sentence. The accused was not required to surrender before the trial court for the modified sentence. The court instructed the relevant authorities to be informed promptly about the modification in the sentence to ensure the accused's release from detention.