9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1129 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - rebuttal of presumption - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - It cannot be ignored of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the judgment of conviction but his grievance is only about the quantum of sentence, as such also, the impugned judgments of conviction under revision does not warrant any interference at the hands of this court so far as the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, is concerned. Though the accused has attempted to rebut the presumption formed in favour of the complainant and in which process, he has entered witness box and produced certain documents, however, he could not successfully rebut the presumption. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the quantum of the fine amount which is very much nearer to the double of the cheque amount, is very much on the higher side, as such, only in reducing the sentence, particularly the quantum of the fine amount, the interference at the hands of this court is warranted. The Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed in part, though does not warrant any interference and as it stands confirmed, however, the order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which was further confirmed by the Sessions Judge's Court, stands modified. The sentencing of imposing a fine of Rs. 1,80,000/- is reduced to a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-, in which a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is ordered to be paid to the State, and remaining amount to be deposited in the Trial Court which amount shall be released in favour of complainant as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. and in accordance with law.
Issues: Accused's appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: 1. The accused was tried and convicted by the Trial Court for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The appeal against this conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Judge's Court, leading to the accused filing a revision petition challenging the order. 2. The case involved the accused, a timber dealer, who failed to supply timber after receiving an advance payment of Rs. 95,000 from the complainant. Subsequently, a cheque issued by the accused bounced due to insufficient funds, leading to a legal notice and the initiation of a criminal case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. The key issue before the High Court was whether the judgments under revision were perverse, illegal, or erroneous, warranting intervention. The Court proceeded to hear arguments from both sides and examined the evidence presented in the Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court records. 4. The Court analyzed the evidence, including witness statements and documents, to determine the guilt of the accused. Despite the accused's defense that the cheque was misused, both lower courts upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 5. The petitioner's counsel requested a reconsideration of the quantum of sentence, emphasizing that the fine amount was disproportionate to the offense. The respondent argued that considering the year of the incident (2008), the sentence should not be deemed excessive. 6. The Court considered the sentencing policy, noting that the sentence should align with the gravity of the offense. While the accused disputed the cash transaction, the cheque amount matched the alleged advance sum. The Court found the fine amount imposed to be on the higher side and decided to reduce it. 7. Consequently, the High Court partially allowed the Criminal Revision Petition, confirming the conviction but modifying the fine amount. The fine was reduced from Rs. 1,80,000 to Rs. 1,20,000, with Rs. 10,000 payable to the State and the remaining to be deposited for compensation to the complainant under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. 8. The Court directed the deposit of the revised fine amount within two weeks and ordered the transmission of the order to both the Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court for necessary action.
|
