2017 (10) TMI 144 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheques - Commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act - deposit the compensation amount as ordered by the trial court and first appellate court - Held that - It is obligatory on the part of the court to pass an appropriate order in regard to awarding sentence so the order to pay compensation may be enforced. In the present, case the petitioners are deliberately flouting the judgment of the first appellate court. In this view of the matter, it is directed that the petitioners shall deposit the amount of compensation of ₹ 53,76,000/- as awarded by the first appellate court within three weeks before the trial court minus ₹ 6 lacs as deposited before the trial court earlier, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without reference to the Court.

Issues:
1. Revision petition against judgment in Criminal Appeals
2. Sentence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
3. Compensation and punishment awarded by trial and appellate courts
4. Maintainability of revision petition due to non-deposit of compensation
5. Legal points raised by petitioners and arguments by counsels
6. Non-payment of compensation by petitioner no. 1
7. Enforcement of compensation order and default sentence

Issue 1 - Revision Petition Against Judgment in Criminal Appeals:
The petitioners filed a revision petition against the judgment passed in Criminal Appeals, challenging the sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court sentenced petitioner no. 1 to one year RI on four counts for dishonouring cheques issued to the respondents. The appellate court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the RI sentence but upholding the compensation of &8377; 53,76,000 with interest and imposing a fine and jail sentence.

Issue 2 - Sentence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act:
Both trial and appellate courts found the petitioners guilty of issuing cheques to enforce legal liability during business transactions, leading to dishonour and a Section 138 offence. The appellate court upheld the compensation of &8377; 53,76,000 with interest but set aside the one-year RI and six-month jail sentence.

Issue 3 - Compensation and Punishment Awarded by Trial and Appellate Courts:
The trial court awarded compensation and jail time, while the appellate court modified the sentence but upheld the compensation amount. Petitioners sought time to deposit compensation due to currency ban, but failed to pay despite court orders, leading to a dispute over the judgment's propriety.

Issue 4 - Maintainability of Revision Petition Due to Non-Deposit of Compensation:
The respondents challenged the maintainability of the revision petition due to non-payment of compensation by petitioner no. 1. The court ordered depositing the compensation within three weeks, failing which the petition would be dismissed automatically.

Issue 5 - Legal Points Raised by Petitioners and Arguments by Counsels:
Petitioners argued legal points for admitting the revision petition, citing a Supreme Court judgment. Respondents accused petitioners of evading payment despite court orders, highlighting the need for enforcing compensation orders effectively.

Issue 6 - Non-Payment of Compensation by Petitioner No. 1:
Petitioner no. 1 failed to pay the compensation ordered by the appellate court, leading to the court's directive for depositing the amount within a specified time to avoid dismissal of the petition.

Issue 7 - Enforcement of Compensation Order and Default Sentence:
Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court emphasized the obligation to pass appropriate orders for enforcing compensation payments. The court directed petitioners to deposit the compensation amount within three weeks, failing which the petition would be dismissed automatically without further court reference.

← Previous Next →