2022 (9) TMI 731 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - compensation should be twice the cheque amount, or not - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - Nowhere in the four corners of the application the petitioner has stated that he intends to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited in court by the opposite party-accused without prejudice to his rights to seek enhancement. It appears from order dated 28.09.2016 of the trial court that the petitioner has not made any submissions that he intends to withdraw the compensation amount without prejudice to his right to seek enhancement. Thus, the aforesaid materials clearly indicate that the petitioner withdrew the amount of compensation out of his own volition. Accordingly, there are no perversity or irregularity in the observation of learned Chief Judge, that the petitioner on one hand challenged the quantum of the sentence and on the other hand received the amount of compensation without the permission from the Court. The facts and circumstances of the present case does not merit enhancement of the compensation imposed by the learned trial court - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment and order dated 09.12.2016 rejecting enhancement of sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a judgment and order rejecting the enhancement of sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner filed a complaint against the opposite party for issuing a dishonored cheque. The trial court convicted the opposite party and imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment and compensation. The petitioner sought enhancement of the sentence and compensation, which was dismissed by the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, stating the petitioner withdrew the compensation without court permission. The petitioner argued for enhancement based on the Act's provisions and the need to uphold creditor faith. The opposite party contended that the compensation amount was voluntarily withdrawn by the petitioner. The court examined Section 138 of the Act, emphasizing the discretionary nature of compensation imposition. The petitioner's advocate argued for doubling the compensation, citing a Supreme Court case. However, the court noted that the Act allows discretion in compensation determination based on case specifics. The court also highlighted that withdrawal of compensation without court permission indicated acceptance of the awarded amount. The court found no basis for enhancing the compensation imposed by the trial court and dismissed the revisional application, upholding the Chief Judge's order.

In summary, the judgment addressed the petitioner's challenge to the rejection of sentence enhancement under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of compensation determination, considering specific case circumstances. The court noted the petitioner's withdrawal of compensation without court permission implied acceptance of the awarded amount. Ultimately, the court dismissed the revisional application, upholding the earlier order.