Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 837
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J.JAMADAR, J.
Cyrus Noshirwan Kartak - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. - Respondent
Writ Petition No.5770 of 2025
Decided On : 05-05-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.30, S.357(3), S.427, S.427(1), S.482
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT : S.138, S.141
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.65
Headnote
(B) Default imprisonment - Nature as penalty not substantive sentence - Court to consider accused circumstances, offence nature and pecuniary position; excessive term unjust even if permissible - Period already undergone set off as total default sentence across complaints where further detention unconscionable. (Paras 36-47)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner as director convicted in 17 complaints for offence under Sections 138 r/w 141 NI Act arising from dishonour of 60 cheques issued towards price of goods sold and delivered to company. Sentenced to simple imprisonment 15 months (concurrent across complaints) plus compensation per complaint with 12 months simple imprisonment in default (consecutive). Appeals dismissed confirming conviction and sentence.
Findings of Court:
Default sentence modified to period already undergone by petitioner (nine years, six months and five days including remission) across all complaints; substantive sentence and compensation liability unaffected; recovery of compensation proceeds independently.
Issues: Whether multiple prosecutions permissible for cheques from single liability; legality of twelve months default sentence per complaint; consecutiveness of default sentences and proportionality of aggregate term.
Ratio Decidendi: Though separate complaints valid and default sentences consecutive, maximum default term six months per case mandatory; totality of eight and half years default plus 15 months substantive grossly disproportionate given compensatory aim of Section 138 and right to life/liberty - default as penalty for non-compliance requires reasonableness considering accused inability to pay.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohit Bharadwaj
For the Respondent: Mr. P.P.Malshe, APP for State., Ms. Snehankita M. Munj with Mr. Shraddha Kamble i/by Mr. Jatin Karia (Shah)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition under art 226/227, s482 crpc challenges multiple ni act convictions. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. 17 complaints filed for dishonour of 60 cheques from single debt. (Para 3) |
| 3. multiple complaints invalid for single transaction; default sentence exceeds limits. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. separate complaints valid for distinct invoices; default sentences consecutive. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. assess if cheques part of single transaction despite separate causes. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. concurrent sentences for same transaction offences under s427 crpc. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. default imprisonment capped at one-fourth maximum offence punishment. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. default fine sentences run consecutively by statute. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 9. default sentence is penalty; consider accused circumstances. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 10. excessive default term violates article 21 proportionality. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 11. default sentence modified to undergone imprisonment period. (Para 46 , 47 , 48) |
JUDGMENT :
N.J.JAMADAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the parties, heard finally.
2. By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), the Petitioner, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I.Act, 1881), in 17 complaints, seeks declaration that the Petitioner be deemed to have been convicted in only one complaint, and, accordingly, the substantive sentence as well as in default sentence be modified, and, in the alternative, it be declared that the sentence which the Petitioner has already undergone shall be treated as the total sentence in all 17 complaints, including the sentence in default of payment of compensation awarded by the learned Magistrate.
3. The Petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts :
2.1 Respondent No.2 – complainant claimed to have sold and delivered goods to the Mintaur Engineering Private Ltd. (A1), of which the Petitioner (A2) was the director. Asserting that an amount of Rs.22,68,07,788/- was due and payable by the accused towards the price of the goods sold and delivered and in discharge of the said liability, accused Nos.1 and 2 had drawn 60 cheques and, during the period 7 July 2014 to 30 July 2014, those cheques were dishonoured upon presentment, the complainant (R2) lodged 17 complaints on 12 September 2014 before the same Court.
2.2 Post completion of the trial, in all 17 complaints, by separate judgments delivered on the same day i.e. 9 May 2017, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 63rd Court, Andheri, the Petitioner came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act, 1881 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 months and also pay distinct amounts of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code, 1973, and, in default of payment of compensation, suffer simple imprisonment for 12 months in each case. It was further directed that the substantive sentences in all the 17 complaints would run concurrently. Whereas the default sentence in each of the cases shall run consecutively.
2.3 Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred 17 appeals before the Court of Session, at Mumbai. By separate judgments and orders of even date i.e. 17 January 2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi, dismissed all the appeals affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in each of the complaints.
2.4 It seems, the orders passed by the Appellate Court have attained finality.
2.5 By this Petition, the Petitioner asserts, there was no reason as to why 17 complaints were lodged. In fact, the transaction between the parties was one and not indivisible. Therefore, the complainant ought to have lodged only one complai
