Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17139 = 2022(2) 429
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2923 of 2022)
Decided on: 19.05.2022
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. M.N.S. Mohamed Habeeb Raja, Adv Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Reduction of sentence to fine, default sentence intact -- Cheque of Rs.3 Lacs – Conviction by Trial Court for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof the appellant was directed to undergo S.I. for six months -- Out of Rs.5000/-, Rs.2500/- was to be paid to the complainant – High Court reduced the sentence from one year to three months – Considering the fact that the appellant is an old lady of 69 years, the substantive sentence substituted by fine in the sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the fine already deposited by the appellant; Rs.55,000/- shall be the sentence for the offences committed by the appellant -- Default sentence awarded by the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court kept intact.
(Para 3-8)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the order dated 28.03.2019 of the High Court of judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision No.156 of 2012.
3. In respect of dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs.3 lakhs, the appellant was proceeded against under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the Act’ for short) in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. The trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year, with imposition of fine in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof the appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Out of the amount of Rs.5000/-, the amount of Rs.2500/- was directed to be paid to the complainant.
4. It appears that civil proceedings were also initiated by the original complainant; and in terms of final decree passed in O.S. No.25 of 2008, certain amounts were directed to be made over to the original complainant.
5. Coming back to the criminal proceedings, the judgment and order passed by the trial court was appealed against. However, the view taken by the trial court was affirmed by the appellate court vide its order dated 02.12.2011.
6. The matter was then carried in Revision before the High Court. While affirming the view taken as regards conviction of the appellant, the substantive sentence was reduced from one year to three months by the High Court keeping the other elements of sentence intact.
7. Despite having been served, the original complainant has chosen not to appear before this Court. The matter is, therefore, being decided without the presence and participation of the respondent.
8. Considering the fact that the appellant is an old lady of 69 years, in our view, ends of justice would be met if, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, the substantive sentence is substituted as under:
“Instead of substantive sentence of imprisonment, the appellant shall pay fine in the sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the fine already deposited by the appellant; and such imposition of fine in the sum of Rs.55,000/- shall be the sentence for the offences committed by the appellant. The default sentence awarded by the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court is kept intact. The amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited before the trial court within two months from today. Out of the sum so deposited, Rs.25000/- shall be made over to the original complainant.
In case, the amount of Rs.50000/-, as directed above, is not deposited, the order passed by the High Court shall stand revived.”
9. With these observations, the instant appeal is disposed of.
Order accordingly.
********