TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine double of the cheques amounts i.e. Rs. Two lakh for the commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. It is ordered that after realization of fine amount, the same shall be paid to the complainant as compensation after appeal period and incase of appeal it shall be dealt as per the directions of learned Appellate Court. Let a copy of this judgment be supplied to the convict free of costs. The file, after its due completion be consigned to the record room." 2. A perusal thereof reveals that the learned Magistrate concerned, has, within mandate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entence of fine upon the defaulting drawer of the cheque. There is for that purpose considerable discretion vested in the Court concerned which can and ought to be exercised in appropriate cases for good and valid reasons. Suffice it to say that the High Court was competent on a plain reading of Section 138 to impose a sentence of fine only upon the appellant. In as much as the High Court did so, it committed no jurisdictional error. In the absence of a challenge to the order passed by the High Court deleting the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, we do not consider it necessary or proper to say anything further at this stage. 12. Coming then to the question whether the additional amount which the High Court has directed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpensation to be distinct from the amount of fine it is imposing equivalent to the cheque amount of Rs. 69,500/-. That was not the correct way of looking at the matter. Logically, the High Court should have determined the fine amount to be paid by the appellant, which in no case could go beyond twice the cheque amount, and directed payment of compensation to the complainant out of the same. Viewed thus, the direction of the High Court that the appellant shall pay a further sum of Rs. 69,500/- does not appear to be legally sustainable as rightly observed by my erudite Brother Vikramajit Sen, J. I, therefore, entirely agree with my Brother's view that payment of a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards fine, making a total fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning his revision granted suspension of the sentence by imposing a condition that part of the fine shall be remitted in court within a specified time. It is against the said direction that this petition has been filed. In our view the High Court has done it correctly and in the interest of justice. We feel that while suspending the sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act it is advisable that the court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount is heavy, the court can direct at least a portion thereof to be remitted as the convicted person wants the sentence to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. In this case the grievance of the appellant is....