TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entence of imprisonment imposed upon the convict, to hence make an apposite order qua its execution being suspended. In aftermath, subject to deposit of 10% of the fine amount within four weeks from today, if not already deposited, and subject to the petitioner’s furnishing within four weeks, from today, personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, and also with an undertaking therein to (a) appear in the Court as and when called upon to do so (b) and in case the instant Revision is dismissed, the petitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court for receiving the sentence, thereupon the operation/execution of the sentence recorded on 16.11.2017 by the learned Judic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Negotiable instrument Act, sentenced the petitioner herein, to, pay fine in a sum, double than the one, borne in the negotiable instrument, yet, the Magistrate concerned has also ordered, for the sum aforesaid being liquidated, as, compensation towards the complainant. 3. Consequently, the learned Magistrate has complied with the judgment reported in 2013 (4) Civil Court Cases 689 (SC) in case titled as Somnath Sarkar vs. Utpal Basu Mallick and Anr., relevant portion whereof is extracted hereinafter, wherein it is postulated that, upon imposition of sentence of fine, upon the convict, by the Convicting Court, in a sum double than the one comprised in the dishonoured cheque, thereupon the Magistrate concerned, being also obliged to order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay could be levied in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment, we must keep two significant aspects in view. First and foremost is the fact that the power to levy fine is circumscribed under the statute to twice the cheque amount. Even in a case where the Court may be taking a lenient view in favour of the accused by not sending him to prison, it cannot impose a fine more than twice the cheque amount. That statutory limit is inviolable and must be respected. The High Court has, in the case at hand, obviously overlooked the statutory limitation on its power to levy a fine. It appears to have proceeded on the basis as though payment of compensation under Section 357 of CrPC is different from the power to levy fine under Section 138, which assum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- (Rupees one lac) out of which ₹ 80,000/- has already been paid as compensation to the complainant, should suffice. The amount of ₹ 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) now directed to be paid shall not go to the complainant who is, in our view, suitably compensated by the amount already received by him. In the event of failure to pay the additional amount of ₹ 20,000/- the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. With these words, I concur with the order proposed by Brother Vikramajit Sen, J. 4. Further more, as mandated in a judgment, of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 659, in case titled as Stanny Felix Pinto v. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd., relevant paragraph whereof is e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant is that he is required by the High Court to remit a huge amount of rupees four lakhs as a condition to suspend the sentence. When considering the total amount of fine imposed by the trial court (twenty lakhs of rupees) there is nothing unjust or unconscionable in imposing such a condition. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. As such no notice need be issued to the respondent .. 5. In aftermath, subject to deposit of 10% of the fine amount within four weeks from today, if not already deposited, and subject to the petitioner s furnishing within four weeks, from today, personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, and also with an under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
