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 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in revision; (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the period spent in custody while undergoing the default sentence.
Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in revision.
Analysis: The petitioner admitted her signature on the dishonoured cheques but disputed the loan transaction and alleged misuse of the cheques. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court had concurrently found, on the basis of the petitioner's own admission in insolvency proceedings, that she was indebted to the respondents and owed them money. Those concurrent factual findings were held not to be perverse or deserving of revisional interference.
Conclusion: The conviction was not interfered with and the challenge failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the period spent in custody while undergoing the default sentence.
Analysis: Section 428 applies to set-off of the period already spent in jail against a sentence of imprisonment. Here, no substantive term of imprisonment had been imposed; only a direction to undergo simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine was operating. A default sentence is consecutive in nature and does not attract the statutory benefit claimed.
Conclusion: The benefit under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was declined.
Final Conclusion: The revision petitions were rejected in full, and the connected interlocutory applications became unnecessary for further consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact sustaining a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are not to be disturbed in revision absent perversity, and Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not apply to custody undergone towards a default sentence.
TaxTMI 
