The interchangeability of 'fine' and 'compensation' under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1 By this common judgment four revision petitions shall be decided. Parties are common; Haryana Petrochemical Ltd. and its Managing Director Rajiv Aggarwal are revisionists before this Court; the respondent/complainant is Indian Petrochemicals Ltd.

A. Criminal Revision Petition No.546/2011 has impugned the judgment and order of sentence dated 17.9.2011 and 27.9.2011 respectively passed by the Sessions Judge wherein he had endorsed the finding of the Magistrate qua the convictions of the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act). The sentence of fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 7 days awarded by the Magistrate stood modified by the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge had awarded compensation of Rs.50 lacs to the complainant company which amount had to be paid within one month failing which the complainant was at liberty to get the sentence executed. This Court notes that the cheque amount in this case was Rs.1,19,80,800/-.

B. Criminal Revision Petition No.656/2009 has impugned the judgment and order of sentence dated 17.11.2009 and 25.11.2009 respectively passed by the Sessions Judge sustaining the conviction of the petitioners under Section 138 of the Act. The Magistrate had awarded compensation of Rs.50 lacs to the complainant; in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for a period of 6 months. This Court notes that the cheque amount in this case was Rs.41,18,400/-.

C. Criminal Revision Petition No.617/2012 has impugned the judgment and order of sentence dated 19.5.2012 which had endorsed the finding returned by the Magistrate sustaining the conviction of the petitioners under Section 138 of the Act. The sentence imposed upon the petitioners was fine of Rs.25 lacs to be paid as compensation to the complainant; in default, to undergo SI for a period of 6 months. This Court notes that the cheque amount in this case was Rs.22,46,400/-.

D. Criminal Revision Petition No.618/2012 has impugned the judgment and order of sentence dated 19.5.2012 which had endorsed the finding returned by the Magistrate sustaining the conviction of the petitioners under Section 138 of the Act and upholding the payment of the compensation of Rs.70 lacs failing which to undergo SI for a period of 6 months. This Court notes that the cheque amount in this case was Rs.77,87,200/-.

2. The fact of these cases disclose that the complainant company i.e. Indian Petrochemicals Ltd. had business dealings with the petitioner company i.e. Haryana Petrochemicals Ltd. They were dealing in the sale and purchase of chemicals. Complainant company was manufacturing and supplying the chemicals DMT and MEG which the petitioner company was purchasing from the complainant company. The cheques given in lieu of these transactions had been dishonoured. The Magistrate on the basis of the evidence led before him had convicted the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Sessions Judge had endorsed this finding and the order of sentence in each of the individual cases as noted supra.

3. Detailed submissions have been made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Counter submissions have also been made. Besides oral arguments written submissions have also been filed by the respective parties.

4. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners shall be answered first. This relates to the authorization given to Deepak Rai Srivastava (PW-3) to file the present complaint; submission being that this complaint was admittedly filed in September, 1995 on the basis of an authorization letter (dated 26.9.1995) given to Deepak Rai Srivastava by the company but there was no resolution accompanying this authorization; the power of attorney Ex.PW-3/B (dated 23.3.1999) exhibited in the testimony of PW-3 clearly shows that this document is of the year 1999 and as such the complaint filed in September, 1995 being without any valid authoriz