<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (6) TMI 519 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214207</link>
    <description>Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked only where the sentence does not include a fine. In a cheque dishonour prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the Magistrate imposed a fine, any compensation could be drawn only from that fine under Section 357(1)(b), not as separate compensation under Section 357(3). The First Class Magistrate also lacked power under Section 29(2) of the Code to enhance the fine to cover the full cheque amount on the facts then before the court. The later insertion of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act removed that ceiling prospectively only, so it did not assist the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 519 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214207</link>
      <description>Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked only where the sentence does not include a fine. In a cheque dishonour prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the Magistrate imposed a fine, any compensation could be drawn only from that fine under Section 357(1)(b), not as separate compensation under Section 357(3). The First Class Magistrate also lacked power under Section 29(2) of the Code to enhance the fine to cover the full cheque amount on the facts then before the court. The later insertion of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act removed that ceiling prospectively only, so it did not assist the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214207</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>