Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, on conviction for dishonour of cheque, the sentencing order should be modified to include compensation to the complainant.
Analysis: The conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintained. The Court held that the object of the provision is not served merely by sending the accused to imprisonment, and that the discretion in sentencing must be exercised judiciously. It further held that the trial court ought to have considered compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the complainant had established dishonour of the cheque and was entitled to receive the cheque amount back within a reasonable time.
Conclusion: The sentence was modified only to the extent that the accused was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 80,000/- to the complainants within 15 days, failing which he would undergo one month's imprisonment. The conviction remained undisturbed.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded in part by adding a compensatory direction while leaving the conviction intact.
Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour conviction, the sentencing court should consider compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so that the complainant receives the cheque amount and the statutory object of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is effectively served.