Appellate sentence enhancement in cheque dishonour cases is impermissible without a lawful enhancement request; added fine was set aside.

An appellate court hearing an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot add a further fine unless enhancement of sentence is lawfully sought; Section 386 CrPC permits alteration of sentence in an appeal from conviction but does not authorise punishment enhancement in the absence of such a request. The additional fine imposed for each count was therefore held illegal and was set aside. The custodial sentence was not reduced to the period already undergone because cheque dishonour carries both compensatory and deterrent elements, and the accused's failure to pay compensation despite opportunities weighed against leniency. The conviction, compensation and remaining imprisonment were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate court could, in an appeal not filed for enhancement of sentence, impose an additional fine after affirming conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded for cheque dishonour deserved reduction to the period already undergone.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate court could, in an appeal not filed for enhancement of sentence, impose an additional fine after affirming conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits an appellate court to alter the nature or extent of sentence in an appeal from conviction, but it does not permit enhancement of punishment in the absence of an appeal seeking enhancement. The respondent's appeal was only against the quantum of compensation and had already been dismissed. In that situation, the appellate court had no jurisdiction to add a further fine of Rs. 10,000/- for each count.

Conclusion: The additional fine imposed by the appellate court was illegal and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded for cheque dishonour deserved reduction to the period already undergone.

Analysis: The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has a compensatory as well as deterrent element, and dishonour of cheque is treated as a regulatory offence arising from commercial dealings. The conduct of the accused, including failure to pay the compensation despite opportunities and directions, was found to be unsatisfactory. In these circumstances, no sufficient ground was made out to reduce the custodial sentence.

Conclusion: The prayer for reduction of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the limited extent of deleting the unauthorized additional fine, while the conviction, compensation and remaining custodial sentence were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court cannot enhance punishment by adding a further fine unless enhancement is sought in accordance with law, and in cheque dishonour cases the custodial sentence may be sustained where the accused's conduct does not justify leniency.

---