Default imprisonment linked to compensation must stay within the statutory ceiling; appellate evidence was rightly refused.

Additional evidence at the appellate stage was properly refused where the accused had been given an opportunity to lead defence evidence but did not use it, and his reply to the demand notice did not disclose the alleged part-payments. The default imprisonment attached to the compensation order was held unsustainable because imprisonment in default must remain within the statutory ceiling applicable to the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Conviction and compensation were maintained, but the default sentence was set aside to the limited extent required by law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the request to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage was warranted. (ii) Whether the default imprisonment attached to the compensation order was legally sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the request to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage was warranted.

Analysis: The record showed that the accused had been given an to lead defence evidence, but he did not avail of it and his reply to the demand notice did not disclose the alleged part-payments. In these circumstances, the appellate court was justified in declining additional evidence at a later stage.

Conclusion: The refusal to permit additional evidence was upheld and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the default imprisonment attached to the compensation order was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The Court applied the limitation on imprisonment in default of payment of fine under Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the substantive punishment for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is limited, the default sentence could not exceed the permissible statutory limit. The Court also noted the age of the petitioner, the period of incarceration already undergone, and part deposit made during the revision.

Conclusion: The default imprisonment clause was held illegal and was set aside, while the compensation liability was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and compensation order remained intact, but the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation was interfered with to the limited extent indicated.

Ratio Decidendi: A default sentence attached to compensation or fine must conform to the statutory ceiling applicable to the offence, and it cannot exceed the lawful limit prescribed for imprisonment in default.

---