2022 (6) TMI 1171 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - funds insufficient - offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act - HELD THAT - The evidence of PW-1, which has remained un-denied, supported by the cheque at Ex.P-1 and the banker's endorsement at Ex.P-2, which shows that there was no sufficient balance in the account of the drawer/accused on the date when the cheque was presented for its realisation and also the copy of legal notice at Ex.P-3 and the postal acknowledgement at Ex.P-5, which further go to show that the complainant had demanded the payment of cheque amount from the accused within the statutory period, but, still the accused did not pay the cheque amount, would make it clear that the complainant has proved the alleged guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt - both the trial Court, as well as the Sessions Judge's Court have convicted and confirmed the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act respectively. In the instant case, the petitioner/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Since in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence ordered by the trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Judge's Court being proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt against the accused, there are no reason to interfere in the impugned judgments. Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Opportunity for accused to cross-examine witness.
3. Adequacy of evidence presented.
4. Sentencing policy and proportionality of punishment.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on a case where the accused failed to repay a loan amount, leading to the dishonoring of a cheque issued as repayment. The trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court both upheld the conviction, leading to the revision petition challenging the judgments.

2. The main issue revolved around the accused's contention of not being given adequate opportunities to cross-examine the complainant witness. The petitioner argued that the trial Court had granted eight adjournments for cross-examination, but the accused remained absent on crucial dates. The Sessions Judge noted the accused's claim of ill health affecting the cross-examination but found the reasons insufficient, given the ample opportunities provided.

3. The complainant presented strong evidence, including the dishonored cheque, banker's endorsement, legal notice, and postal acknowledgments, establishing the debt and the accused's failure to repay. The complainant's testimony, supported by documentary evidence, remained unchallenged due to the accused's absence and failure to cross-examine the witness despite multiple opportunities.

4. The sentencing policy was also scrutinized, with the Court emphasizing that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine and face imprisonment in default of payment, a decision deemed appropriate considering the proven guilt and circumstances of the case. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the judgments of the lower courts, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition as lacking in merits, affirming the conviction and sentencing imposed by the lower courts. The decision highlighted the importance of providing opportunities for cross-examination, the significance of strong evidence in establishing guilt, and the necessity for proportionate sentencing in criminal cases.