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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether enhancement of the sentence and compensation imposed for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was warranted.
Analysis: The compensation and fine contemplated by Section 138 are not mandated to be equal to twice the cheque amount in every case; the provision uses permissive language and leaves the extent of compensation to judicial discretion based on the facts and circumstances. The cited Supreme Court decision was found distinguishable on facts because the trial court there had not imposed compensation. The petitioner's withdrawal of the compensation amount without recording any reservation or obtaining leave of the court also supported the view that there was no perversity in the revisional court's refusal to enhance the sentence.
Conclusion: Enhancement of compensation and sentence was not justified, and the challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The refusal to enhance the punishment under the cheque dishonour proceedings was upheld, leaving the trial court's award undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the extent of compensation is discretionary and need not invariably reach twice the cheque amount; enhancement will not be ordered where the award is not shown to be perverse and the complainant has accepted the compensation without reservation.