| Headnote |
Negotiable instruments Act, 1881: s. 138 - Sentencing under - Respondent found guilty u/ s.138 - Magistrate sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs.2000 and in default to undergo imprisonment and also directed her to pay Rs. 20, 000 as compensation to the complainant and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months - Held: Magistrate having levied fine of Rs. 2, 0001-, it was impermissible to levy any compensation having regard to s.357(3), Cr.P.C. - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.357(3). s. 138 - Methods to improve the disposal of cases u/s. 138 of the Act - Suggested. s. 138 - Purpose of enactment - Held: Cases arising u/s. 138 are really civil cases masquerading as criminal cases - The avowed object of Chapter XVII of the Act is to encourage the culture of use of cheques and enhance the credibility of the instrument" - It provides a single forum and single proceeding, for enforcement of criminal liability (for dishonouring the cheque) and for enforcement of the civil liability (for realization of the cheque amount) thereby obviating the need for the creditor to move two different fora for relief - The apparent intention is to ensure that not only the offender is punished, but also ensure that the complainant invariably receives the amount of the cheque by way of compensation u/s. 357(1)(b), Cr.P.C. - Uniformity and consistency in deciding similar cases by different courts, not only increase the credibility of cheque as a negotiable instrument, but also the credibility of courts of justice.s.143(1) - Imposition of fine - Held: s.143(1) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, all offences under Chapter XVII of the Act should be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of ss.262 to 265 of the Code (relating to summary trials) shall, as far as may be, apply to such trials - The proviso thereto provides that it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term extending one year and an amount of fine exceeding Rs.5,0001-, in case of conviction in a summary trial under that section - In view of conferment of such special power and jurisdiction upon the First Class Magistrate, the ceiling as to the amount of fine stipulated in s.29(2) of the Code is removed-' Consequently, in regard to any prosecution for offences punishable u/s. 138 of the Act, a First Class Magistrate may impose a fine exceeding Rs.50001 -, the ceiling being twice the amount of the cheque.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.357(3) - Award of compensation - Held: Sub-section (3) of s.357 is categorical that compensation can be awarded only where fine does not form part of the sentence - Where the sentence imposed does not include a fine, that is, where the sentence relates to only imprisonment, the court, when passing judgment, can direct the accused to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced- Sub-section (1) of s.357 provides that where the court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence of which fine forms a part, the Court may direct the fine amount to be applied in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court - Thus, if compensation could be paid from out of the fine, there is no need to award separate compensation - Only where the sentence does not include fine but only imprisonment and the court finds that the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act of the accused person, requires to be compensated, it is permitted to award compensation u/s.357(3) - Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 - Compensation. |
