Compensation in cheque dishonour cases may carry default imprisonment, and appellate suspension may require a reasonable deposit condition.
In cheque dishonour prosecutions, compensation awarded on conviction may be supported by imprisonment in default of payment, as this is consistent with the compensatory purpose of the criminal procedure framework. While suspending the substantive sentence in appeal, the court may also impose a reasonable monetary condition requiring deposit of part of the cheque amount, particularly where the amount involved is substantial. On the facts noted, the default imprisonment attached to the compensation order was upheld, the deposit condition was sustained, and limited relief was granted by extending the time for compliance.
Issues: (i) Whether the Magistrate could impose imprisonment in default of payment of compensation awarded on conviction under the cheque dishonour offence; (ii) whether, while suspending the substantive sentence in appeal, the Appellate Court could require deposit of a part of the cheque amount as a condition, and whether time for compliance could be extended.
Issue (i): Whether the Magistrate could impose imprisonment in default of payment of compensation awarded on conviction under the cheque dishonour offence
Analysis: Compensation under the criminal procedure code is intended to be an additional consequence of conviction, and the power to award compensation may be enforced by a sentence in default. The law declared by the Supreme Court recognises that courts can direct default imprisonment to secure payment of compensation, and such a course is consistent with the compensatory purpose of the provision.
Conclusion: The default imprisonment attached to the compensation order was not illegal.
Issue (ii): Whether, while suspending the substantive sentence in appeal, the Appellate Court could require deposit of a part of the cheque amount as a condition, and whether time for compliance could be extended
Analysis: In prosecutions under the cheque dishonour provision, the Supreme Court has approved the practice of imposing a monetary condition when granting suspension of sentence, especially where the amount involved is substantial. The condition must be reasonable, and where the sum is heavy the appellate court may direct deposit of a substantial part rather than grant unconditional suspension. On the facts, the appellate court's direction to deposit fifty per cent of the cheque amount was justified, but additional time could be granted in view of the applicant's difficulties.
Conclusion: The deposit condition was upheld, and the time for deposit was extended.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the suspension order failed on merits, but limited relief was granted by enlarging the time for compliance with the deposit condition.
Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, compensation may be backed by default imprisonment, and while suspending sentence in appeal the court may impose a reasonable monetary deposit condition proportionate to the amount involved.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
