2023 (8) TMI 529 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque u/s 138 of NI Act - reduction in the sentences imposed on petitioner - complainant submits that the complainant has received the whole amount of cheque as per the settlement - no minimum sentence provided under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. HELD THAT - Since the parties are entering into compromise at the stage of revision, therefore, law laid down by the apex Court in the case of DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT will be applicable in this case, where it was held that The competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the proceedings to their logical end. Considering the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise before this Court in the revision and decided to avoid further litigation, hence, the applicant is liable to pay 3% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.4,500/- by way of cost to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority Indore - Subject to payment of cost at the rate of 3% of the cheque amount with the State Legal Services Authority Indore, within a period of 15 days from today, the applicant be released from the jail. Sentence awarded to the applicant is hereby modified by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. In case of failure to deposit of the said amount before the State Legal Services Authority, the petitioner shall undergo the original sentence and compensation as awarded by learned trial Court - revision disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a revision filed against a criminal appeal where the applicant was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to imprisonment and compensation. The issues include the compromise deed submitted by both parties, reduction of the appellant's sentence, and the applicability of guidelines for imposing costs in cases of delayed composition of offenses.

Details of the Judgment:
1. The revision was filed against a judgment convicting the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The learned Sessions Court affirmed the conviction and imposed a sentence of imprisonment and compensation on the applicant.
2. The revision was accompanied by a compromise deed, indicating that both parties had settled the matter without any undue influence or coercion. The complainant received the full amount of the cheque as per the settlement and agreed to reduce the jail sentence to the period already undergone.
3. The complainant's counsel confirmed that the complainant had received the entire amount as per the settlement and had no objection to reducing the jail sentence since there is no minimum sentence specified under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
4. The court considered the compromise between the parties and referred to the guidelines laid down by the apex court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. regarding the imposition of costs on parties delaying the composition of offenses in cheque bouncing cases.
5. Following the guidelines, the court directed the applicant to pay 3% of the cheque amount as costs to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority. Upon payment within 15 days, the applicant would be released from jail, and the sentence would be reduced to the period already undergone.
6. Failure to deposit the required amount would result in the applicant undergoing the original sentence and compensation as awarded by the trial court. The revision was disposed of accordingly, with a certified copy to be issued as per rules.