Back
V SRISHANANDA
Francis Zavier W. – Appellant
Versus
M M Mathew – Respondent
ORDER
Heard Sri. Ismail Muneeb Musba, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Sudarsan G for Sri. Gaonkar Dinesh Neelkant., learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the validity of the order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.5905/2016 dated 15.10.2018 on the file of XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Bengaluru which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.2267/2018 dated 26.02.2021 on the file of LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. At the outset, Sri.Ismail Muneeb Musba, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in the event this Court confirming the order of conviction, it may consider the reduction of the sentence, as the learned Trial Magistrate has imposed the double the cheque amount without assigning any reasons in the impugned judgment which has been blindly confirmed by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court.
4. In other words, the revision petitioner is now restricted his revision only with regard to the sentence imposed.
5. Sri. Sudharshna, representing the counsel
Dishonour of cheque – Role of Court in convicting accused is different from role of Court while passing appropriate sentence in a given case.
Sentencing in criminal cases must be accompanied by clear reasoning, especially when imposing fines beyond standard amounts.
The court holds that modifications to sentences are permissible under the circumstances to ensure justice, particularly regarding compensation for victims.
The court clarified the presumption of liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act while limiting the fine to double the cheque amount.
The court clarifies that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the compensatory aspect must take precedence over punitive measures in sentencing.
The court confirmed the conviction under Section 138, emphasizing the established dishonor of the cheque and appropriate sentencing.
Concurrent findings under Section 138 NI Act upheld; no revision interference; fine payment time granted for financial hardship.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
