TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required interference in revision on the ground of alleged material alteration in the cheque and insufficiency of proof. (ii) Whether the sentence imposed and affirmed by the lower courts required modification.
Issue (i): Whether the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required interference in revision on the ground of alleged material alteration in the cheque and insufficiency of proof.
Analysis: The cheque contained an alteration in the date, but the correction was visible and carried a signature beneath it. The loan transaction was pleaded as having occurred in April 2009, and the evidence accepted by the courts below supported the complainant's version. The accused did not seek reference of the cheque to a handwriting expert, nor did he initiate any complaint regarding alleged misuse of the cheque. The revisional court declined to reappreciate concurrent findings of fact in the absence of legal infirmity.
Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld and no interference was warranted.
Issue (ii): Whether the sentence imposed and affirmed by the lower courts required modification.
Analysis: The operative portion of the trial court's order did not impose a fine but awarded compensation and imprisonment. The revisional court held that the sentence required correction, and that the amount directed to be paid could be structured as fine and compensation. The court therefore modified the punishment while retaining the monetary liability in substance.
Conclusion: The sentence was modified to payment of Rs. 5,000 as fine and Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation, with default simple imprisonment for one month.
Final Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, but the sentence was altered by the revisional court, resulting in only partial relief to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: In revision, concurrent findings sustaining a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will not be interfered with absent legal infirmity, while the sentence may be modified to correct an illegality or impropriety in the punitive order.
TaxTMI 
