The compensatory nature of the offense under Section 138 of the NI Act and the legislative intent to deter dishonour of cheques influenced the court's decision in setting aside the additional fine imposed by the appellate court.

ORDER :

Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J.

1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2020 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Katni (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No. 2700046/2016, whereby learned appellate Court maintained the conviction against the applicants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") and sentenced the applicant No. 1 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year (Four counts for each cheque of Rs. 10 Lacs), all sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently, along with compensation of Rs. 53,76,000/- and to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment of 6 months in default of payment of compensation amount, as also fine of Rs. 10,000/- for each four counts.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision, are that, the applicant No. 2, which is a private limited company, deals in the business of production and selling of milk powder and other products and the applicant No. 1 Gopal Sharma is the Director of that company. The respondent is a firm, which deals in the business of sell and purchase of Medicines, Dairy products, Milk, Milk powder, Ghee and other products. The respondent firm placed an order to the applicants for supplying 50 Metric Tonnes Milk Powder. The applicant company agreed to supply milk powder and received Rs. 80 Lacs in advance for that transaction but, the applicant company neither supplied the milk powder nor returned the money. When the respondent pressurized the applicant for returning the money, the applicant provided four cheques of Rs. 10 Lacs each. When those cheques were presented in the bank for encashment, the same were dishonoured and the bank returned those cheques with an endorsement that sufficient funds are not available in the account of the applicants. Thereafter, the respondent contacted the applicants and the applicants assured the respondent that on again presenting the cheques in the bank for encashment, they would be honoured. The respondent again presented the cheques in the bank for encashment but, all the cheques were again dishonoured and returned by the bank. The respondent served a legal notice to the applicants on 6.7.2012, which was received by the applicants on 11.7.2012 but the applicants not paid the cheque amount within the stipulated period. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act against both the applicants before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni, being R.T. No. 4231/2012. Learned trial Court after completing the trial, delivered a judgment on 15.3.2016, whereby convicted both the applicants for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and passed an order of sentence against the applicant No. 1 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year (Four counts for each cheque) and calculated the compensation @ 9% and fixed the compensation amount Rs. 53,76,000/- to be paid to the respondent by the applicants.

3. Both the applicants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.3.2016 passed by the trial Court, preferred an appeal before the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Katni (M.P.), which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 2700046/2016. Learned appellate Court after hearing both the parties, concluded the appeal and passed a judgment on 7.12.2016, whereby affirmed the conviction passed against the applicants and reduced the sentence of 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment to till rising of Court, however, fine of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed for each four counts.

4. The respondent also filed an appeal registered as Criminal Appeal No. 2700073/2016 against judgment dated 15.3.2012 passed by the trial Court on the ground that learned trial Court calculated the compensation @ 9% interest. Being a business transaction, it was prayed to enhance the compensation @ 16% interest. Learned appellate Court disallowed the prayer of the respondent and dismissed