IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Reasons – Reasons are obvious inasmuch as if a cheque gets dishonored, the payee will suffer hardship in meeting his financial commitments.
(2) Object and Reasons – The prime object of enacting the provision under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to recover the amount covered under the dishonored cheque at the earliest point of time rather than penalizing the accused.
(3) Prosecution – Prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is in the nature of quasi civil and quasi criminal in nature.

ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Sri. Hemachandra R. Pai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. M.N. Nehru, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Brijesh Edupuganti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Ramakrishnan S., learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Accused filed a revision petition challenging the order passed in CC No.54198/2017 dated 16.10.2018 on the file of XV Additional Judge and 23rd CMM, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.25215/2018 dated 24.12.2021 on the file of XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-22) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. Operative portion of the order passed by the learned Trail Magistrate and order passed by the Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court reads as under:

Order in CC No.54198/2017:

“Accused found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. I hereby convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days.

Acting under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. I hereby direct the accused to pay compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- to the complainant within 2 months from the date of this order. Failing which, the complainant is at liberty to recover the said amount as per Section 421 of Cr.P.C.”

Order in Crl.A.No.25215/2018:

“The appeal filed U/s 374(3) r/w Section 386 of Cr.P.C. by the appellant/accused is dismissed.

The judgment passed in CC No.54198/2017 on 16/10/2018 by the XV Addl. Judge and 23rd CMM, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru is confirmed.

The order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court U/s 389 of CRPC stands cancelled.

Send back lower court records along with certified copy of Judgment of this appeal.”

4. Sri. M.N. Nehru, learned counsel submits that entire amount in a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- has been deposited as under:

i. Rs.4,40,000/- on 08.03.2019

ii. Rs.17,60,000/- on 07.01.2022

5. However, before the deposit of compensation amount could be made, accused was arrested pursuant to the warrant issued by the learned Trial Magistrate and accused was sent to the judicial custody on 02.08.2022. He was ordered to be released from the judicial custody on 10.08.2022 passed by this Court. Thereafter, accused was actually released from the judicial custody on 15.08.2022. Therefore, learned counsel for the revision petitioner while accepting the order of conviction seeks the modification in respect of sentence of six months imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate and to waive sum of Rs.10,000/- which has been ordered to be paid as defraying expenses of the state.

6. Since the operative portion of the order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate comprises of two parts namely recording the order of conviction and order of payment of fine amount and imprisonment apart from compensation in a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- acting under section 357 of Cr.P.C., this Court, in this revision, is now confined only with regard to the order of sentence of simple imprisonment of six months in addition to payment of fine in a sum of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence of 30 days.

7. At the outset, since the lis is privy to the party and no state machinery is involved, imposing the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the defraying expense of the state needs to be set aside.

8. Now coming to the submission of revision petitioner that setting aside the imprisonment for a period of six months, learned counsel for the respondent submits that said submission on behalf of the accused/revision petitioner cannot be countenanced in law on two folds.

9. Primarily, since the act contemplates imposition of fine and imprisonment or imprisonment or both, in a given cas