Default imprisonment for non-payment of compensation in Section 138 NI Act cases capped at six months per complaint; consecutive terms across multiple cases modified to period already undergone where aggregate disproportionate to substantive sentence and violative of Article 21.

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