Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Rakesh Kumar Vs Jasbir Singh and another (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Appeal Number : Crl. Rev. No. 3004 of 2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 11/08/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Rakesh Kumar Vs Jasbir Singh and another (Punjab and Haryana High Court)

In the instant case, the revision petitioner is the accused. He issued a cheque dated 22.4.2006 to the complainant –respondent No.1, which was dishonoured. The dishonor memo is dated 25.4.2006. Thereafter, the complainant sent a notice dated 1.5.2006 demanding payment of the cheque amount but no response was received thereto. Hence, he filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The complaint was dismissed and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgement dated 25.02.2014. However, appeal against the said judgement was allowed on 20.10.2015 and the case was remanded for a fresh decision. Post remand, vide judgement dated 8.7.2016, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of two years. He was also directed to pay compensation equal to the cheque amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of cheque till the date of the judgement. Appeal against the aforementioned judgement of conviction was dismissed vide judgement dated 21.8.2019 leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

High Court states that provisions inserted in the Act is for inculcating greater faith in banking transactions needed more teeth so that cases involving dishonour of cheques reduced.It is, thus, apparent that deterrence and restoration are the principles to be kept in mind for sentencing. At the same time, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the offence under Section 138 of the Act is quasi criminal in nature. Section 147 of the Act makes the offence compoundable notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is not an offence against society and an accused can escape punishment by settling with the complainant. Thus, while imposing a sentence under Section 138 of the Act, the Court must be alive to the concern of the Legislature in inserting Chapter XVII in the Act and then amending the provisions thereof to make the same more stringent as well as the jurisdiction prudential principles of deterrence and restoration and that the offence is quasi criminal in nature. The award of compensation is justified and reflects a judicious exercise of mind. However, in view of the nature of the offence as well as the fact that the cheque amount is only Rs. 4 lacs, the award of maximum sentence is held to be arbitrary. Mitigating circumstances argued by counsel for the petitioner such as the petitioner being a poor person and having undergone a protracted trial of almost 10 years, also exist. Thus, the revision petition is dismissed and conviction is maintained. However, the sentence is reduced upto a period of one year and six months along with payment of compensation as awarded by the trial Court.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT

The revision petitioner is the accused. He issued a cheque dated 22.4.2006 to the complainant –respondent No.1, which was dishonoured. The dishonor memo is dated 25.4.2006. Thereafter, the complainant sent a notice dated 1.5.2006 demanding payment of the cheque amount but no response was received thereto. Hence, he filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The complaint was dismissed and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgement dated 25.02.2014. However, appeal against the said judgement was allowed on 20.10.2015 and the case was remanded for a fresh decision. Post remand, vide judgement dated 8.7.2016, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of two years. He was also directed to pay compensation equal to the cheque amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of cheque till the date of the judgement. Appeal against the aforementioned judgement of conviction was dismissed vide judgement dated 21.8.2019 leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031