2023 (9) TMI 168 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - Amicable settlement of dispute - seeking reduction of the period of sentence already undergone - HELD THAT - 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 2% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.4,700/- by way of cost to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority Indore. Subject to payment of cost at the rate of 2% 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. Revision disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a revision against a criminal conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment and compensation. The issues include the request for reduction of sentence based on a compromise deed and the application of guidelines for imposing costs in cases of delayed composition of offenses.

Revision Against Conviction and Sentencing:
The revision was filed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, affirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate convicting the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The applicant was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a compensation amount. The revision sought a reduction in the sentence based on a compromise deed submitted by both parties, indicating free will and no coercion.

Compromise Deed and Sentencing Reduction:
The compromise deed presented with the revision indicated that both parties had settled the matter amicably, with the complainant receiving the agreed amount. The complainant expressed no objection to reducing the jail sentence, highlighting the absence of a minimum sentence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The revision requested a reduction in the appellant's sentence to the period already served.

Application of Supreme Court Guidelines:
The revision considered the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., emphasizing the need to discourage undue delays in compounding offenses under Section 138 of the Act. The guidelines proposed a graded scheme for imposing costs on parties delaying composition, with varying percentages of the cheque amount to be paid for compounding at different stages of the legal process.

Cost Imposition and Sentence Modification:
In line with the Supreme Court guidelines, the revision ordered the appellant to pay 2% of the cheque amount as costs to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority. Upon payment within 15 days, the appellant would be released from jail, with the sentence modified to the period already undergone. Failure to deposit the specified amount would result in the original sentence and compensation being enforced.

Disposition of the Revision:
The revision was disposed of, subject to the appellant's compliance with the cost payment requirement. The judgment emphasized the importance of amicable settlements to avoid prolonged litigation, aligning with the principles of encouraging early composition of offenses under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Certified Copy and Conclusion:
The judgment concluded with the issuance of a certified copy as per rules, marking the end of the legal proceedings related to the revision against the conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.