Back
2011 Supreme(SC) 102
2012 CrLJ 1180
Supreme Court of India
HARJIT SINGH BEDI & CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD
S.R. Sunil & Co.
Versus
D. Srinivasavaradan
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41 OF 2005
Decided on : 27-01-2011
For the Petitioner:Pramod Dayal, Advocate. For the Respondent:
K.K. Mani, Advocate.
The bouncing of a cheque for interest payment can lead to a deterrent sentence, even if the principal amount has been paid.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonoured Cheque - Imprisonment and Fine
Fact of the Case:
The respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,40,00,000 from the appellant and issued a cheque for interest payment, which was dishonoured. A complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that despite the principal amount being paid, the interest promised through the cheque bounced, and the accused made no attempt to make the payment for 15 years. A deterrent sentence was deemed necessary.
Issues: Dispute over interest payment on a borrowed amount and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the Trial Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: The bouncing of the cheque for interest payment was considered a serious matter, and the Court emphasized the need for a commensurate sentence based on the facts and behavior of the accused.
Final Decision: The accused was directed to pay a compensation and fine of Rs. 5,38,425, and in default of payment, undergo two years simple imprisonment.
Judgment :
1. A very limited prayer is made in this appeal.
It arises from the order of the High Court. Admittedly a sum of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- had been borrowed by the respondent from the appellant on the 5th October, 1996. On 18th November, 1996, the respondent gave a cheque for Rs.5,38,425/- towards the interest on the aforesaid amount. This cheque was deposited in the bank on the 9th of January, 1997 which was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was, accordingly, filed and it was noticed that the only dispute was with regard to the payment of the interest as the principal amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- had already been paid within time. The Trial Magistrate, accordingly, thought it fit that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- would meet the ends of justice. A revision was thereafter filed by the appellant and the same has been dismissed. The present appeal has been filed praying that the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- was completely unrealistic and contrary to the law laid down in Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagadeeshan (2002) 2 SCC 420.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the afore-cited case, it has been highlighted that the bouncing of cheque was a serious matter and not to be dealt with lightly by the Court and a sentence commensurate with the facts and the behaviour of the accused must also be kept in mind. Undoubtedly the principal amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- had been paid by the accused but the interest which he had promised to pay by way of the cheque could not be realised as the cheque had bounced. It is also clear that despite the fact that the complaint had been filed in the year 1996 and the matter has been pending for 15 years, he has not made any attempt to make the payment. We, therefore, feel that a deterrent sentence is called for in the light of the aforesaid circumstances. We, accordingly, direct the accused-respondent herein to pay a compensation and fine of Rs. 5,38,425/- and in default of payment to undergo two years simple imprisonment. We give time upto the end of March, 2011 to make the payment failing which he will be taken into custody to serve out his sentence.
3. The appeal stands disposed of.
