2021 (1) TMI 853 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - error apparent on the face of record or not - offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act - HELD THAT - This Court did not notice any error apparent on record with the well reasoned orders of the learned Magistrate and the learned First Appellate Court. Suffice to say that, though under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the Court is entitled to order for double the cheque amount as fine and imprisonment for two years, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the learned Magistrate awarded fine of ₹ 39,000/-, out of which, ₹ 37,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant along with imprisonment of six months. In the considered opinion of the Court, awarding simple imprisonment for a period of six months is not supported by valid reasons. Therefore, to that extent, this Court is of the opinion that the simple imprisonment of six months is excessive and the same needs to be set aside. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in the pandemic COVID-19, granting three months with fine of ₹ 39,000/- less the amount deposited before the First Appellate Court would meet the ends of justice - Revision petition allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of judgment convicting accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Excessive sentencing.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act:
The case involved a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the accused borrowed money and issued a cheque that was dishonored. The accused failed to repay despite legal notice, leading to a complaint. The Magistrate found the accused guilty based on evidence, sentencing him to imprisonment and a fine, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, noting that the accused's defense was not strong enough to overturn the conviction. The Court emphasized that the accused's actions constituted an offense under Section 138 of the Act, leading to the conviction and sentencing.

Issue 2: Excessive Sentencing:
The High Court addressed the issue of excessive sentencing, noting that while the law allows for double the cheque amount as fine and imprisonment for two years, the Magistrate's decision to impose a fine of ?39,000, with ?37,000 as compensation to the complainant and six months' imprisonment, was considered excessive. The Court, considering the circumstances, reduced the sentence to three months with a fine of ?39,000, minus any amount already paid. This adjustment was deemed appropriate, balancing the severity of the offense with the current situation, including the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court allowed the revision petition in part, maintaining the conviction but setting aside the original six-month imprisonment sentence, granting the accused three months to pay the fine and compensation, failing which the original sentence would be reinstated.