2022 (6) TMI 856 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court Upholds Sentence & Compensation, Stresses Legal Compliance

Sri Arun Kumar Chattopadhyay Versus Smt. Rupa Karpas & anr.

The High Court upheld the trial court's sentence and compensation amount, setting aside the appellate court's modifications. Emphasizing compliance with ... Remission of sentence as made by the first appellate court - increase in the compensation amount - Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the sentencing part of the judgement, it appears that practically no reason has been assigned by the Appellate Court for aforesaid remission though the appellate court is of the view that the Trial Court judgment is reasoned and well written. Appellate Court specifically observed that the learned Magistrate has rightly convicted the accused no. 2 for committing offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he has also rightly acquitted accused no. 1 as she is not the drawer of the cheque but he observed that the term of sentence imposed upon the accused appears to be excessive. He has not explained why it appears to be excessive to the appellate court because the maximum sentence of imprisonment that a Magistrate can award under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is for two years - the finding of the first appellate court needs to be interfered because though the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a basically documentary offence but still such proceeding can never be considered as money recovery proceeding. Once it is proved that the offence has been committed, court is under obligation to impose appropriate sentence to the accused person. The impugned judgment dated 6/9/2018 is set aside only to the extent that the sentence as awarded by the trial court shall remain unaltered. The finding of both the courts below respondent no. 2 as convict and acquitting respondent no.1 on the ground that she is not the drawer of the cheque, remains uninterfered by this court - application disposed off. Issues:1. Revision of sentence and compensation amount by the appellate court.2. Application of Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Interpretation of the sentencing provisions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.4. Justification for modifying the sentence to 'till rising of the court.'5. Compliance with legal requirements for imposing appropriate sentences.Analysis:Issue 1: Revision of sentence and compensation amount by the appellate courtThe petitioner challenged the judgment of the appellate court, which revised the sentence and compensation amount imposed by the trial court. The appellate court modified the sentence to 'suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the court' and increased the compensation amount. The petitioner argued that the appellate court did not provide reasons for the remission of the sentence, contrary to the Apex Court's judgment in Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh vs. Vijay D. Salvi.Issue 2: Application of Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal ProcedureThe petitioner contended that the accused convict should pay 9% per annum interest on the compensation amount to the complainant, as per the Apex Court's ruling. However, both the trial court and the appellate court overlooked this aspect. The petitioner emphasized the importance of complying with Section 357(3) for the proper application of the law.Issue 3: Interpretation of the sentencing provisions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ActThe appellate court observed that justice could be better served by providing pecuniary relief to the complainant rather than sentencing the accused to imprisonment in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the court noted that every conviction should be followed by an appropriate sentence within the stipulated legal framework, emphasizing the need for courts to apply their minds while imposing sentences.Issue 4: Justification for modifying the sentence to 'till rising of the court'The appellate court's decision to modify the sentence to 'till rising of the court' was criticized for being a misplaced act of generosity, as highlighted in the Apex Court's judgment in Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan. The court emphasized the importance of imposing appropriate sentences and ensuring that the sentencing aligns with the legal requirements and objectives of the legislation.Issue 5: Compliance with legal requirements for imposing appropriate sentencesThe High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment to the extent that the sentence awarded by the trial court remained unaltered. The court directed the convict to surrender for undergoing the sentence and paying the compensation as awarded by the trial court. Additionally, the court allowed the complainant to take steps for the realization of the compensation amount along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the trial court's judgment till recovery, ensuring compliance with legal procedures.This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues addressed in the judgment, focusing on the revision of sentences, application of statutory provisions, interpretation of legal principles, and the importance of complying with legal requirements while delivering judgments in criminal cases.