Default imprisonment for non-payment of compensation must stay within statutory limits and satisfy Article 21 proportionality.

For offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a default sentence for non-payment of compensation cannot exceed the statutory ceiling; a 12-month default term was therefore held impermissible and modified. The challenge to directing default sentences in multiple complaints to run consecutively failed, as default imprisonment is treated separately from the substantive sentence. The Court also applied Article 21 fairness and proportionality, holding that prolonged further detention for default was excessive and unjustified where recovery of compensation remained available. The default sentence was reduced to the period already undergone and release was ordered if the person was not required in any other case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation could exceed the statutory limit applicable to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) Whether default sentences in the several complaints could be directed to run consecutively; (iii) Whether continued detention for the default sentence was justified in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation could exceed the statutory limit applicable to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The governing provisions restrict imprisonment in default of payment of fine or compensation to the ceiling fixed by law. For an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the maximum default sentence could not exceed one-fourth of the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for the offence. A default sentence of 12 months was therefore beyond the permissible limit.

Conclusion: The default sentence of 12 months in each complaint was illegal and liable to be modified in favour of the Petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether default sentences in the several complaints could be directed to run consecutively.

Analysis: A default sentence is a penalty for non-payment and is distinct from the substantive sentence. The statutory scheme and settled law recognise that imprisonment in default of payment of fine or compensation is not to be treated as a concurrent substantive term in the same manner as ordinary sentences. The direction for consecutive operation of default sentences was therefore not disturbed on that ground alone.

Conclusion: The challenge to consecutive running of the default sentences did not succeed.

Issue (iii): Whether continued detention for the default sentence was justified in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Court applied the requirement of a fair, just and reasonable procedure under Article 21 and the principle that the nature of the offence, the circumstances of the offender and the object of a default sentence must guide the court. A prolonged period of default incarceration, vastly disproportionate to the substantive sentence already suffered, was found to be excessive and unconscionable, especially when recovery of compensation remained legally available.

Conclusion: Further detention for the default sentence was not justified and the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent of modification of the default sentence, and the Petitioner was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: A default sentence for non-payment of compensation must remain within the statutory ceiling and must also satisfy the test of fairness and proportionality under Article 21; where further incarceration would be grossly disproportionate to the substantive sentence and recovery remains available, the court may reduce the default sentence to the period already undergone.

---