Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1116 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - debt payable to the complainant present or not - misuse of cheque - Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - The learned courts below have given consistent finding in favour of the opposite party no. 2 that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt. This court finds that the learned courts below have given consistent finding of facts after due appreciation of the evidences on record and have rightly held the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This court also finds that the basic ingredients of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act have been satisfied in the present case and accordingly, the judgement of conviction of the petitioner does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court - this Court fully agrees with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 that there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence in revisional jurisdiction and coming to a different finding in absence of any perversity. This Court finds that no perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The sentence of the petitioner is modified by limiting it to the period already undergone by the petitioner in custody and impose fine of Rupees one lakh upon the petitioner over and above the compensation amount which has already been fixed by the learned court below with a further condition that the petitioner would deposit the fine amount alongwith the compensation amount before the learned court below within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. If the amount is not so deposited within the said period, the petitioner would serve the sentence already imposed by the learned trial court. This petition is disposed of with modification of sentence.
Issues:
1. Appeal against conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Consideration of defense evidence and misuse of the cheque. 3. Modification of sentence and compensation amount. Analysis: 1. The revision application was filed against the judgment convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, sentencing him to six months of Simple Imprisonment and directing payment of compensation. The petitioner argued that defense evidence was not properly considered, claiming the cheque was left with someone who refused to return it. However, the courts found the petitioner guilty based on evidence of cheque deposit, bouncing, and legal notice compliance, rejecting the defense's claims of no debt owed and misuse of the cheque. 2. The opposite party argued that there was a presumption that the cheque was issued against a debt, supported by evidence of land purchase discussions and payments made. The courts considered the evidence, including the purpose of the cheque issuance, and found the defense failed to establish that the cheque was not issued for debt discharge. The courts emphasized that there was no scope for re-appreciation of evidence in revisional jurisdiction. 3. While the courts upheld the conviction, they considered modifying the sentence. The petitioner requested a sentence modification, suggesting additional fine payment and limiting the imprisonment period. The court, after reviewing the submissions, modified the sentence to the period already served in custody, imposed an additional fine of Rupees one lakh, and directed the petitioner to pay the compensation and fine within a specified timeframe. Failure to comply would result in serving the original sentence. The court ordered immediate disbursement of the total amount to the complainant upon payment. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, including the arguments presented by both parties, the court's findings on evidence and defense claims, and the final decision regarding the sentence modification and compensation amount.
|