TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Court Modifies Sentence in Section 138 Case, Clarifies Compensation Rules</h1> <h3>Sajeev P.R. Versus Thriveni Credit Corporation and Ors.</h3> The appellate court modified the sentence imposed on the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court clarified ... - Issues:1. Can a criminal court impose a sentence of fine and a direction for payment of compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. simultaneouslyRs.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the question of whether a criminal court can simultaneously impose a sentence of fine and a direction for compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The case involves a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the accused admitted to the signature on the cheque but failed to provide evidence to support their plea of discharge. Both lower courts found the complainant successful in proving the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.The trial court initially sentenced the accused to one year of simple imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 13,000, and a default imprisonment term of 3 months. The appellate court modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court but also imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000 and directed payment of compensation equal to the cheque amount of Rs. 10,752, with separate default sentences for the fine and compensation amounts.The judgment highlights that the Sessions Judge did not correctly interpret Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., which allows for compensation orders when a sentence does not include a fine. The judgment clarifies that if a fine is part of the sentence, Section 357(3) cannot be applied. The court emphasizes the need for a substantive sentence without a fine before issuing a compensation direction under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.Moreover, the judgment notes that the trial was conducted before a Chief Judicial Magistrate who has the authority to impose any fine sentence allowed by law. Considering the circumstances of the case and the prolonged legal battle endured by the complainant, the court decides to modify and reduce the sentence. The accused is now sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000, with a default imprisonment term of 2 months, and the entire amount, if realized, will be released to the complainant under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C.In conclusion, the judgment allows the revision petition in part, upholds the guilty verdict and conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, but modifies and reduces the imposed sentence to a fine of Rs. 15,000, emphasizing the importance of compensating the complainant adequately.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
