Section 138 conviction sustained, but custodial sentence replaced with additional compensation in a cheque dishonour dispute.

Concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustained because the dishonoured cheque reflected an admitted business liability and the revisional challenge did not disturb the evidence appreciation by the courts below. The defence based on later civil recovery proceedings and execution of a civil decree was not accepted as a voluntary settlement of the cheque dishonour offence. However, applying the compensatory character of the offence, the custodial sentence was modified and substituted with additional compensation payable to the complainant, with the earlier deposited amount directed to be released.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision; (ii) whether the sentence of imprisonment required modification by substituting additional compensation to the complainant.

Issue (i): Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision

Analysis: The dishonoured cheque represented an admitted liability arising out of the business transaction. The defence founded on subsequent civil recovery proceedings and execution of the civil decree was not treated as establishing a voluntary compositional settlement of the cheque dishonour offence. The revisional challenge did not dislodge the concurrent appreciation of evidence recorded by the courts below.

Conclusion: The conviction was maintained and no interference was made with the finding of guilt.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of imprisonment required modification by substituting additional compensation to the complainant

Analysis: The cheque amount and the compensation already stood realized or deposited, and the Court applied the compensatory approach reflected in the governing precedents on cheque dishonour. In view of the compensatory element of the offence and the circumstances of the case, the custodial sentence was considered capable of substitution by a further monetary payment to the complainant.

Conclusion: The sentence of imprisonment was modified and substituted by a direction to pay additional compensation of Rs. 30,000 to the complainant within two months, with the deposited compensation to be released in favour of the complainant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 was left intact, but the punishment was altered so that the matter stood concluded by payment of additional compensation instead of undergoing the imprisonment originally imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction under Section 138 may be sustained while the custodial sentence is modified and replaced with additional compensation where the cheque liability has been substantially met and the compensatory object of the provision is better served by monetary redress.

---