Concurrent findings in cheque dishonour conviction remain undisturbed, while custodial sentence may be replaced by secured compensation.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the SC declined to interfere with concurrent findings of guilt, holding that no basis existed to disturb the conviction. However, because the compensation fixed by the trial court had already been deposited and an additional amount had also been secured, the Court modified the simple imprisonment sentence and substituted it with payment of the additional compensation amount to the complainant. The conviction was therefore maintained, while relief was granted only on sentence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the concurrent finding of guilt for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference; (ii) Whether the sentence of simple imprisonment could be modified in view of the compensation already deposited.

Issue (i): Whether the concurrent finding of guilt for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference.

Analysis: The finding of guilt had been recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court and the High Court. No basis was found to disturb the concurrent findings of fact sustaining the conviction.

Conclusion: The conviction was not interfered with and stood affirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of simple imprisonment could be modified in view of the compensation already deposited.

Analysis: The compensation amount fixed by the trial court had already been deposited, and an additional amount had also been deposited in compliance with the earlier direction. In the overall circumstances, the Court found that the interest of justice would be served by substituting the custodial sentence with payment of the additional compensation amount already deposited.

Conclusion: The sentence of simple imprisonment was modified and the additional compensation amount was directed to be paid to the complainant in lieu of imprisonment.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of sentence modification, while the conviction was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of guilt in a cheque dishonour case will not ordinarily be disturbed, but the custodial sentence may be modified and replaced by compensation where the ends of justice so require and the compensation has been duly secured.

---