Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (9) TMI 731

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n Magistrate, Calcutta on 29.06.2016 in Case No. C/406/2012 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2.The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner filed a petition of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the opposite party before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, inter alia, stating as follows:- (i) The opposite party issued a cheque bearing no.616987 dated 21.02.2012 amounting to Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the petitioner in discharge of his existing debts and liabilities. (ii) The petitioner deposited the aforesaid cheque with his banker but the cheque was dishonoured with the remark "funds insufficient" vide cheque return memo dated 16.05.2012. (iii) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... esaid Criminal Revision on the ground that the petitioner has withdrawn the amount of compensation without informing or obtaining permission of the learned Court and that the imposition of sentence is a judicial discretion. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed in Criminal Revision dismissing the prayer for enhancement of the quantum of sentence and compensation the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Mr. Sachit Talukdar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as per the provisions embodied under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the court can impose compensation to the extent of twice the cheque amount, however, the learned trial court awarded a meagre sum of Rs. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... impliedly accepted the amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial court. Further the provisions embodied therein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not specify that in all cases the amount of compensation should be twice the amount and as such the imposition of compensation to the extent of twice the amount of the cheque lies with the discretion of the learned trial court depending on the facts and circumstances varying from case to case. In view of her aforesaid submissions she prayed for dismissal of the revisional application. 6. Having heard the rival contentions raised on behalf of both the parties before delving into the merit of the application it will be apposite to reproduce Section 138 of the Negoti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice." 6.1. Mr Talukdar, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously argued that in cases falling under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the compensation should be twice the cheque amount. It is pertinent to note that the section provides that the fine 'may extent to twice the cheque amount'. As per Section 29(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a magistrate cannot impose fine of more than Rs.10,000/-, however, in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act compensation can be granted to the payee or holder of the cheque taking recourse to Sec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sentence and compensation. Firstly, on going through the judgement of the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, passed in Criminal Revision No. 166 of 2016 it appears that no such leave or permission was taken by the petitioner for withdrawing the amount of compensation. In view of the matter, the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, observed that the petitioner on one hand has challenged the quantum of the sentence whereas on the other he has withdrawn the amount of compensation without informing the court or taking its permission. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the application (Annexure P3) filed before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta, for withdrawing the compensation am .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates