2022 (3) TMI 1051 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - rebuttal of presumption - Section 118 and Section 139 of the NIA - Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - The present applicant has preferred appeal against the judgment and order of the trial court before the District and Sessions Court vide Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2021 wherein, at the first time, in paragraph no. F of the appeal memo, grievance was raised by the appellant as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, applicant was entitled to claim for the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. That, the lower appellate court, after hearing the a parties, discussed issue in para 9 of the judgment and dismissed the appeal of the present applicant and partly confirmed the order of the trial court. It was further ordered that respondent no. 2/original accused shall pay amount of ₹ 1 lac by way of fine and out of this amount, ₹ 50,000/- shall be given to the present applicant by the respondent no. 2 by way of compensation. It appears that no special circumstances were shown by the present applicant allegedly extended at the relevant point of time. For the first time before the lower appellate court, grievance was raised by the present applicant that he was not awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. as per the judgment - in absence of any special circumstance, trial court as well as lower appellate court has committed no error by not awarding any interest at the rate of 9% p.a. as prayed by the present applicant. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment and order passed by lower courts in a criminal case under Section 138 of the NI Act for inadequate imprisonment, fine, and compensation. Failure to award interest at the rate of 9% p.a. as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Analysis:
The applicant sought to quash the judgments of the District and Sessions Court and Additional Judicial Magistrate Court for not imposing adequate penalties under Section 138 of the NI Act. The applicant argued that the lower courts erred in directing payment of ?1 lac to the respondent without considering the Apex Court's directive to levy fines up to twice the cheque amount with 9% interest, which was not awarded to the applicant. The applicant's appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate court, which confirmed the trial court's decision to convict the accused and order a fine of ?1 lac, with ?50,000 to be compensated to the applicant. The court noted that the applicant failed to present any special circumstances for claiming interest at 9% p.a. as required by the judgment.

The Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in a similar case emphasized the importance of proving special circumstances for claiming interest at 9% p.a. under Section 138 of the NI Act. The lower courts found no evidence of special circumstances presented by the applicant to justify the interest claim. The courts held that without such evidence, the judgments were not erroneous or illegal. The court highlighted that the applicant should have provided evidence of special circumstances during the trial to support the claim for interest at the specified rate. Since no such evidence was presented, the court concluded that the lower courts did not commit any error in not awarding the interest as requested by the applicant.

In light of the limited issue raised by the applicant regarding the interest at 9% p.a., the court declined to admit the revision application and dismissed it. The court's decision was based on the lack of special circumstances presented by the applicant to support the claim for interest at the specified rate. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing necessary evidence and circumstances to substantiate claims under Section 138 of the NI Act, as required by legal standards.