Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Nov 29: High Court in a cheque bounce case today directed all the Judicial Magistrates that while imposing fine on conviction of accused, the complainant must be sufficiently compensated.
The landmark verdict has been passed by Justice Kumar in a petition seeking setting aside of order of Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge), Srinagar in a complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 whereby the accused has been convicted and punished with simple imprisonment for a term of six months and in addition, he has been held liable to pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lakh to the petitioner.
The petitioner is not aggrieved by the order of Special Magistrate insofar as it convicted the accused for commission of offence under Section 138 of NI Act and imposed punishment of simple imprisonment for a term of six months.
However, his grievance is that the accused should have also been awarded fine sufficient enough to meet the liability of the cheque issued by him which later on was dis-honoured.
The accused had given the complainant a cheque for an amount of Rs.10.00 lakh, which, on presentation in the Bank, was returned for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused.
“Indisputably, the Legislature has given discretion to the Magistrate to impose a sentence of fine which may extend to double the amount of cheque and, therefore, the sentence of fine whenever imposed by the Criminal Court upon conviction of accused under Section 138 of N.I.Act must be sufficient enough to adequately compensate the complainant”, Justice Kumar recorded.
The amount of cheque, court added, and the date from which the amount under the cheque has become payable along with payment of reasonable interest may serve as good guide in this regard.
“To be consistent and uniform, it is always advisable to impose a fine equivalent to the amount of cheque plus at least 6% interest per annum from the date of cheque till the date of judgment of conviction”, Justice Kumar recorded.
Court said, before inflicting such fine, the Trial Magistrate must eschew the amount of interim compensation, if any, paid under Section 143A of N.I. Act or such other sum which the accused might have paid during the trial or otherwise towards discharge of liability.
Justice Kumar further elaborated that it may or may not accompany the sentence of simple imprisonment and it is purely in the discretion of the trial Magistrate but having regarding to the object of legislation, it shall be appropriate if the sentence of imprisonment imposed is kept at the minimum unless, of course, the conduct of accused demands otherwise.
Court concluded while dealing with the instant case that the Trial Court has miserably failed to take all these aspects into consideration and has awarded Rs.2.00 lac, to be paid as compensation to the complainant. “When admittedly the cheque amount was to the tune of Rs.10.00 lakh. The petitioner, who was complainant before the trial Court, has been deprived of a sum of Rs.10.00 lac which amount had become payable to him on the date of issuance of cheque”, reads the judgment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel