2020 (6) TMI 679 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while making observations in respect of enhancement of the compensation, forgot to see that there was no order of compensation at all by the learned Magistrate which could be enhanced. The enhancement presupposes awarding of some amount as compensation. In fact, there ought to have been, in such circumstance, a discussion as to whether awarding of compensation is necessary or not, as compensation can be awarded under Section 357(1) or 357(3) of Cr.P.C. If the compensation is to be should be from the fine amount and if it is to be in view of Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., then fine should not be part of sentence. Further, the entire provision of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. is discretionary and, therefore, there ought to have been an endeavour in the judgment to state as to why the sentence is inadequate. The scope of the revision petition has been then restricted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for enhancement of compensation only as it appears. Therefore, it will have to be stated that there was no proper application of mind by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and all the requisite factors, which are required to be considered to see whether the sentence that has been awarded is adequate or not, have not been considered at all. Petition and revision partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Separate judgments for interconnected proceedings.
2. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Sentencing and enhancement of compensation.
4. Procedural propriety and judicial propriety in delivering judgments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Separate Judgments for Interconnected Proceedings:
The court criticized the practice of delivering separate judgments for interconnected proceedings. The original proceedings involved a criminal writ petition and a criminal revision arising from the same case. The appellate and revisional courts delivered two different judgments despite the interconnected nature of the cases. The court emphasized that such an approach is not based on sound legal provisions and causes inconvenience to the parties. It reiterated previous observations from a civil matter, emphasizing that a common judgment should be given to avoid contradictory observations and provide a compact view of the dispute.

2. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to a dishonored cheque. The Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced them to simple imprisonment and a fine. The accused appealed the conviction, while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction, but the revisional court allowed the revision, restoring the complaint for passing an appropriate sentence. The court found the approach of the Additional Sessions Judge confusing and contradictory, as he dismissed the appeal but allowed the revision, which was not legally sound.

3. Sentencing and Enhancement of Compensation:
The Additional Sessions Judge's decision to dismiss the appeal while allowing the revision for enhancing the sentence was found to be procedurally flawed. The court noted that the learned Magistrate had not awarded any compensation, and the revisional court's observation about enhancing compensation was incorrect. The court highlighted that compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. is discretionary and requires proper consideration of whether the sentence is adequate. The conflicting judgments led to confusion about the available remedies for the accused if the sentence was enhanced.

4. Procedural Propriety and Judicial Propriety in Delivering Judgments:
The court emphasized the importance of procedural and judicial propriety in delivering judgments. It pointed out that the Additional Sessions Judge should not have segregated the guilt finding and sentencing parts. Once the appeal was dismissed, the proceedings before the Magistrate should have ended, and the matter could not be reopened for awarding an adequate sentence. The court stressed that judicial officers should avoid practices that jeopardize the rights and remedies of the parties and should ensure clear and consistent judgments.

Conclusion:
The court set aside both judgments delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge and remanded the matters for fresh consideration. It directed the parties to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge on a specified date and instructed the accused to furnish bail. The court refrained from discussing the merits of the cases due to the remand. The decision aimed to ensure proper judicial procedure and avoid conflicting judgments.