Cheque dishonour sentencing requires adequate reasons before reducing punishment; compensation and interest may also be sustained.

In cheque dishonour prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a nominal custodial sentence cannot be reduced without adequate reasons where the cheque amount remains unpaid; the sentence must reflect the punitive object of the statute, and the original sentence was restored. The compensation awarded under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also maintained, with interest at 9% per annum permitted from the date of the trial court judgment until recovery. The text treats compensation and interest as consequential relief linked to the restored sentencing order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate court was justified in reducing the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to imprisonment till rising of the court. (ii) Whether the complainant was entitled to retain the compensation awarded by the trial court with interest at 9% per annum.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate court was justified in reducing the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to imprisonment till rising of the court.

Analysis: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 remained undisturbed, but the appellate court reduced the custodial sentence without assigning adequate reasons and treated the matter as one warranting greater pecuniary relief rather than proper punishment. The sentence was reduced despite the absence of payment of the cheque amount and without justification for departing from the trial court's sentence. In a prosecution for cheque dishonour, the proceeding is not a mere money recovery action, and conviction must ordinarily be followed by an appropriate sentence within the limits prescribed by law.

Conclusion: The reduction of sentence by the appellate court was set aside and the trial court's sentence was restored.

Issue (ii): Whether the complainant was entitled to retain the compensation awarded by the trial court with interest at 9% per annum.

Analysis: The compensation awarded under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintained, and the court also permitted realization of the compensation amount with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the trial court's judgment until recovery. This was treated as consequential relief flowing from the restored sentencing order.

Conclusion: The compensation award was affirmed, with interest at 9% per annum allowed for recovery.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded to the extent that the appellate court's lenient sentencing order was interfered with, the original sentence was restored, and the compensation order remained operative with interest for recovery.

Ratio Decidendi: In a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, reduction of sentence to a nominal custodial term without adequate reasons is impermissible where the cheque amount remains unpaid, and the sentencing court must impose an appropriate punishment consistent with the object of the statute.

---