Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24149
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J
SMT. DIVYA. I. B. – Appellant
Versus
SRI. M. S. SUBBEGOWDA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 682 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. HARISHA A.S.
For the Respondents: SRI. GANGAN B.S., SRI. NEERAJ RAJIV SHIVAM
The legal principle confirms that dishonour of a cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act validates debt recovery procedures, reinforcing creditor rights.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: Pursuant to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a dishonoured cheque prompts legal obligations for the issuer. Facts of the Case: The complainant wrote a cheque of Rs. 5,50,000/- for a hand loan, which was subsequently dishonoured. The trial concluded with the accused's conviction and a sentence for an amount higher than the original debt due to additional liabilities.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's determination of guilt was upheld by the appellate authority which dismissed appeals challenging the decision.
Issues: The core question addressed was whether the imposition of fine exceeded statutory limitations or constituted excessive punishment in the face of the original loan repayment terms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the imposing of fines equating to double the cheque amount, as permitted by law, was appropriate, regardless of the contention regarding inclusive interest.
Result: The petition was partially allowed, allowing the accused time for fine payment with conditional imprisonment failure.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dishonour of cheque leads to legal proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. appeal against conviction and sentence. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding excessive penalty and fine. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's confirmation of the fine's legality. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final order on fine payment and conditions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed assailing the concurrent finding in a proceeding for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 . The accused is convicted.
2. Respondent/complainant lodged a private complaint alleging dishonour of cheque for Rs.5,50,000/- issued by the petitioner/accused on the premise that hand loan advanced to the petitioner is not repaid and the cheque issued towards discharge of the said hand loan was dishonoured.
3. The complaint states that initially the accused had borrowed Rs.5,50,000/- from the complainant and issued a cheque bearing No.786534 for Rs.5,50,000/- towards discharge of the debt. The said cheque dated 01.12.2014 was dishonoured and the complainant initiated proceedings in C.C.
No.316/2015 and said proceedings ended in a settlement where the accused agreed to pay Rs.7,75,000/- towards the amount due to the complainant and issued one more cheque and the said cheque is dishonoured.
4. The petitioner/accused contested the matter. The Trial Court concluded that the transaction alleged by the complainant is established and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.9,20,000/-. Out of the fine amount, Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be paid to the State towards the expenses and Rs.9,15,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant. In the event of default to pay the fine amount, the petitioner/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
5. The petitioner/accused filed the appeal and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/- towards the complainant. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner/accused.
6. The parties to the proceedings are referred to as per the designation before the Trial Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that the oral evidence adduced by the parties have not been considered in a proper perspective. The valid defence raised by the accused while cross-examining the complainant is not properly appreciated.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court could not have imposed the penalty of Rs.9,20,000/- given the fact that the cheque for Rs.7,75,000/- also included the interest component which the accused had agreed and the Trial Court could not have imposed a penalty of Rs.9,20,000/- which amounts to charging compound interest. In addition to that it is also urged that the simple imprisonment of six months in the event of default is also disproportionate to the amount involved in the cheque.
9. It is also urged that the Trial Court could have imposed a fine of Rs.7,75,000/- as the cheque amount included the interest.
10. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that Rs.7,75,000/- was agreed to be paid in the year 2018 and that cheque was issued in terms of the settlement arrived at in a proceeding C.C. 316/2015, which was initiated on account of dishonour of cheque for Rs.5,50,000/-. Thus he would urge that the amount which was sought to be repaid to the complainant is the amount payable in the year 2014. Thus he would contend that the penalty of Rs.9,20,000/- imposed by the Trial Court is on the lower side. The law enables the Court to impose the double cheque amount as fine and as the fine amount of Rs.9,20,000/- is less than the twice original cheque amount of Rs.5,50,000/-, the contention that the Trial Court could not have imposed a fine amount of Rs.9,20,000/- is not available.
Thus it is urged to dismiss the petition.
11. This Court has c
