2022 (2) TMI 885 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - cheque bounce cases - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - In the present case, the records reveals that the accused were regular customers of the complainant and they used to supply medical surgical devices. The total cheque amount was ₹ 5,73,094/-. It is also evident from the evidence that, earlier also accused had transaction and purchased goods to the tune of ₹ 59 to 60 lakhs, which is evident from the cross-examination evidence. The records indicate that the respondents have not submitted any documents to show that the goods are defective. However, learned Sessions Judge keeping in mind the nature of transaction has imposed the said sentence by modifying the amount and has awarded fine amount of ₹ 6,00,000/- in default, directed the accused-proprietor to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of the above said fine amount of ₹ 5,95,000/- amount to be paid as compensation to the complainant and the remaining ₹ 5,000/- to the Government as fine. Looking into the nature of transaction and the value of the goods and the cheque amount, in my considered view, the said modification order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not appear to be perverse or illegal. On the other hand, whatever goods purchased by the accused, goods supplied value has to be paid and some extra amount has also to be paid. The same is awarded as compensation in the order passed by the Session Court i.e., in the year 2015 itself. The revision petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Revision petition challenging the judgment passed by the learned LIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in Criminal Appeal No. 241/2015 regarding the conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
- Contention of the petitioner regarding modification of the sentence by the Sessions Judge.
- Consideration of legal principles in cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentence Modification:
The revision petition stemmed from the judgment of the Sessions Judge confirming the trial court's conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act but modifying the sentence by reducing the fine amount. The complainant alleged that the accused issued dishonored cheques for medical devices supplied, leading to legal action. The trial court convicted the accused, imposing a significant fine and compensation. The Sessions Judge upheld the conviction but reduced the fine amount, considering the nature of the transaction and the lack of proof of defective goods by the accused.

2. Contentions and Legal Principles:
The petitioner contended that the modification of the sentence was contrary to law, arguing for the restoration of the original trial court judgment. The petitioner emphasized the need for interest on the compensation amount and the consideration of time and expenses incurred during litigation. The court analyzed the legal principles in similar cases, citing the importance of practical and realistic compensation, including interest on the cheque amount. The court noted that each case must be evaluated based on its merits and circumstances.

3. Judicial Analysis and Decision:
The court examined the evidence, including the transaction history and lack of proof of defective goods by the accused. The court found the modification by the Sessions Judge reasonable, considering the value of the goods, the transaction history, and the compensation awarded. The court concluded that the modification order was not unjust or illegal, given the circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision petition, confirming the judgment of the Sessions Judge and upholding the modified sentence.

In conclusion, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the revision petition challenging the modification of the sentence by the Sessions Judge in a case involving the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legal principles governing cheque bounce cases and the specific facts and evidence presented in the case.