TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 748
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resentation. FACTS:- 3. The petitioner's case is that the opposite party no.1 (hereinafter mentioned as the complainant) filed a case against the petitioner/accused person to the effect that the complainant purchased a tractor from the accused petitioner. Subsequently the tractor was not functioning properly and he returned it to the accused petitioner and asked for return of the money. The accused/petitioner gave him a cheque of 70,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank which was subsequently dishonoured. The Complainant then issued demand Notice but the accused/petitioner did not pay the amount. Hence the case. 4. On completion of trial, the petitioner was convicted as above. 5. The accused petitioner filed a criminal Appeal before the Learned Sessions Court, Hooghly, against the said judgment and order passed by the Learned Trial Court which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2018. 6. On 30.03.2019 the Learned Judge dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Learned Trial Court. 7. Hence the Revision. 8. The order conviction and sentence by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court (order under revision) is as follows:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [two] years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that ..................................." 17. In the present case the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of twelve months. 18. In Krishan Gupta & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr., AIR 2007 (NOC) 2021 (CAL.), decided on 23rd March, 2007, the Court held:- "12. Last but not least, in the instant case I found the conviction of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act being upheld in appeal and order of sentence of fine being set aside there is nothing except compensation in consequences of conviction. The conviction entails imposition of sentence unless imposition of sentence is kept in abeyance by operation of law. The Negotiable Instruments Act provides for sentence of imprisonment and sentence of fine. The compensation is not the part of any sentence neither it is a substitute of sentence but in addition thereto. The provisions of Section 357(3) of the Code makes it ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mphasis supplied) This Court also took note of the number of cases involving dishonor of cheques choking the criminal justice system of this country, especially at the level of the Magisterial Courts, and held that dishonor of cheque being a regulatory offence, aimed at ensuring the reliability of negotiable instruments, the provision for imprisonment extending up to two years was only intended to ensure quick recovery of the amount payable under the instrument. The following passages from the decision are in this regard apposite: "4...It is quite evident that the legislative intent was to provide a strong criminal remedy in order to deter the worryingly high incidence of dishonour of cheques. While the possibility of imprisonment up to two years provides a remedy of a punitive nature, the provision for imposing a `fine which may extent to twice the amount of the cheque' serves a compensatory purpose. What must be remembered is that the dishonour of a cheque can be best described as a regulatory offence that has been created to serve the public interest in ensuring the reliability of these instruments. The impact of this offence is usually confined to the private parti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... favour of the accused by not sending him to prison, it cannot impose a fine more than twice the cheque amount. That statutory limit is inviolable and must be respected. The High Court has, in the case at hand, obviously overlooked the statutory limitation on its power to levy a fine. It appears to have proceeded on the basis as though payment of compensation under Section 357 of CrPC is different from the power to levy fine under Section 138, which assumption is not correct. The second aspect relates precisely to the need for appreciating that the power to award compensation is not available under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is only when the Court has determined the amount of fine that the question of paying compensation out of the same would arise. This implies that the process comprises two stages. First, when the Court determines the amount of fine and levies the same subject to the outer limit, if any, as is the position in the instant case. The second stage comprises invocation of the power to award compensation out of the amount so levied. The High Court does not appear to have followed that process. It has taken payment of Rs.80,000/- as compensat....