Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Gaurav Khullar – Appellant
Versus
Eleven V Industries & Ors. – Respondents
CRR-1631-2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-02-2023
Compensation - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138, Section 357 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. The judgments referred to emphasized the need for uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation to the complainant in cases of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that unless there are special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, fine up to twice the cheque amount ought to be imposed and adequate compensation must be awarded to the complainant. The court also clarified that even if a convict had undergone the sentence in default for non-payment of compensation, the said compensation amount was still recoverable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondents for dishonour of a cheque. The Trial Court convicted the respondents but did not award compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner appealed for enhancement of sentence and compensation, but both appeals were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana misinterpreted the provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C. and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'R. Vijayan versus Baby and another, 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 743'. The court held that adequate compensation commensurate with the cheque amount must be awarded to the complainant in cases of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issues: The primary contention raised in the petition was the misinterpretation of the provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C. and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'R. Vijayan versus Baby and another, 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 743'. The petitioner argued that post-recording of a conviction, it becomes the primary duty of the Trial Court to not only punish the offender but to also invariably compensate the complainant for the dishonour of the cheque.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless there are special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, fine up to twice the cheque amount ought to be imposed and adequate compensation must be awarded to the complainant. The court also clarified that even if a convict had undergone the sentence in default for non-payment of compensation, the said compensation amount was still recoverable.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was allowed, and the respondents-accused were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,00,000/- in addition to the fine already imposed. The said amount was to be deposited by the accused-respondents in the Trial Court within a period of 04 weeks from the date of the order. In default of payment of fine, the accused would have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. After the amount of fine is deposited in the Trial Court, it be given to the petitioner as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The sentence of imprisonment awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in its judgment dated 20.01.2016 was not altered.
JUDGMENT
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral) - The prayer in the present revision petition under Section 397/401 read with Section 357(4) Cr.P.C. is for setting aside the order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in Criminal Appeal No.124 of 15.12.2014 and registration No.CRA-1033-2014 titled as 'Gaurav Khullar versus M/s Eleven V Industries and Ors.' whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist/complainant against the omission to grant of compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate while passing the order of conviction and sentence dated 22.09.2014 in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and for enhancement of substantive sentence awarded by the Magistrate has been dismissed and no amount of compensation has been granted to the revisionist/complainant after the judgment of conviction and order of sentence had been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist/complainant (hereinafter known as 'the petitioner') had instituted a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondents/convicts (hereinafter known as 'the respondents') on account of the dishonour of a cheque bearing No.577096 dated 25.08.2011 for an amount of Rs.7,75,000/-. A copy of the complaint is attached as Annexure P-1 to the present petition.
After the completion of the Trial, the Trial Court convicted the respondents vide judgment of conviction dated 22.09.2014 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of which, they were to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. However, at the time of convicting and sentencing, no compensation was awarded to the petitioner in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C. A copy of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2014 passed by the Trial Court is attached as Annexure P-2.
3. Against the non-grant of compensation to the petitioner by the Trial Court under Section 357 Cr.P.C. as also the inadequacy of the substantive sentence of 06 months imprisonment, an appeal was preferred by him under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. challenging the non-grant of compensation and for enhancement of sentence. A copy of the said appeal is attached as Annexure P-3 to the present petition. The respondents also preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed upon them. The appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court was upheld. However, simultaneously, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the non-grant of compensation by the Trial Court was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana without awarding any compensation and enhancing the substantive sentence. The copy of the judgment dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby both the appeals filed by the respondents as well as the petitioner (complainant) respectively were dismissed is attached as Annexure P-4.
The present revision petition has been preferred against the aforementioned judgment.
4. The primary contention raised in the present petition is that the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C. as also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'R. Vijayan versus Baby and another, 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 743'. The Appellate Court had ignored the fact that a cheque had been issued for a sum of Rs.7,75,000/- which came to be dishonoured and while convicting the accused, no amount of compensation was awarded.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, has clearly misinterpreted the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 357 Cr.P.C. It has also misinterpreted the j
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, unless there are special circumstances, fine up to twice the chequ....
The compensatory aspect is paramount in Section 138 cases, and trial courts must ensure adequate compensation to complainants while exercising discretion in sentencing.
A single complaint is maintainable for multiple dishonoured cheques issued on the same cause of action, as established by the Supreme Court.
(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 t....
(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 t....
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
