IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that under Section 138, sentencing discretion allows for adjustments based on the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this revision is made to the following:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 09.05.2022, passed in Case No. 209 of 2020, Lalit Mohan Vs. Rajesh Gulati, by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar. By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.2,05,000/-. Out of the amount of the fine, the complainant shall get an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-; and

(ii) Judgment and order dated 10.01.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2022, Rajesh Gulati Vs. State and another, by the court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District Haridwar (“the appeal”). By it, the appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed and the order passed in the case has been affirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Instant revision has been admitted to the extent of examining the correctness of sentence. Notices were issued on respondent no.2, the complainant, but he is not represented. Service is sufficient on him.

4. The case is based on a complaint filed by the respondent no.2 (the complainant). According to which, the complainant had advanced a loan of Rs.1,20,000/- to the revisionist on 12.04.2023. In return thereof, a cheque was given by the revisionist, but when presented, the cheque was dishonoured. After conducting the trial, by the impugned judgment and order dated 09.05.2022, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 138 of the Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.20,05,000/- with the further stipulation that out of the amount of fine, Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid to the complainant, as compensation. This judgment and order passed in the case has been confirmed in appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist has already undergone more than two months’ imprisonment. He has already deposited the fine imposed on him. Therefore, now the sentence may be restricted to the period, which the revisionist has already undergone in the case. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is merely Supervisor in a tyre factory and even the payment of fine is much higher on him.

6. Learned State counsel would submit that the revisionist has been in custody in the case for two months.

7. In the offences under the Act, retribution is not the object. The object is to find purity in the financial transactions. The purpose is realisation of money also.

8. In the case of Somnath Sarkar Vs. Utpal Basu Mallick and another, (2013) 16 SCC 465, the Hon’ble Justice T.S. Thakur (as he then was) discussed on the aspect of sentence. In para 15, observed as follows:-

“15. We do not consider it necessary to examine or exhaustively enumerate situations in which courts may remain content with imposition of a fine without any sentence of imprisonment. There is considerable judicial authority for the proposition that the courts can reduce the period of imprisonment depending upon the nature of the transaction, the bona fides of the accused, the contumacy of his conduct, the period for which the prosecution goes on, the amount of the cheque involved, the social strata to which the parties belong, so on and so forth. Some of these factors may indeed make out a case where the court may impose only a sentence of fine upon the defaulting drawer of the cheque. There is for that purpose considerable discretion vested in the court concerned which can and ought to be exercised in appropriate cases for good and valid reasons. Suffice it to say that the High Court was competent on a plain reading of Section 138 to impose a sentence of fine only upon the appellant. Inasmuch as the High Court did so, it committed no jurisdictional error. In the absence of a challenge to the order pa