The court clarifies that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the compensatory aspect must take precedence over punitive measures in sentencing.

ORDER

This matter is posted today before this Court under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the order dated 23.02.2026, passed in the above revision, there are certain typographical errors. The appearance of the counsel is wrongly mentioned as “the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)” instead of “the learned counsel for the respondent” and in the 6th and 8th paragraphs, STC No., is wrongly mentioned as “Spl.S.C.No.37 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge, Puducherry” instead of “STC No.3407 of 2022 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court – IV, George Town, Chennai.” Similarly, in paragraph No. 8, the time for payment of the balance fine amount is wrongly mentioned as “within a period of four weeks” instead of “within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Thus, he prayed for suitable directions.

3. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Registry is directed to issue an order copy afresh forthwith by correcting paragraph Nos. 5, 6, and 8 of the order as follows: “5. The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, submitted that the impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity; that the courts below rightly found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to eight months Simple Imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.7,00,000/- along with interest; and that the sentence imposed is justified and prayed for dismissal of the revision.

6. It is seen that the petitioner had deposited the entire cheque amount to the credit of “STC No.3407 of 2022 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court – IV, George Town, Chennai.” It appears that the petitioner had made attempts to pay the cheque amount to the respondent, which were refused. Though the respondent denies the same, the petitioner has produced copies of the demand draft and cheque allegedly drawn during the trial and appellate proceedings respectively.

8. Though the respondent has established the commission of offence by the petitioner, considering the conduct of the petitioner and the conduct of the respondent, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence imposed on the petitioner is modified. Accordingly, the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.8,50,000/- as fine. On payment of the fine amount, the learned Magistrate shall pay the said amount as compensation to the respondent. The petitioner has so far deposited a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the credit of “STC No.3407 of 2022 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court – IV, George Town, Chennai.” The said amount shall be treated as paid towards fine. The petitioner shall pay the balance fine amount of Rs.1,50,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, in default, shall undergo three months’ Simple Imprisonment.

06-03-2026 dk Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To

1. The XVI Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court IV, George Town, Chennai.

SUNDER MOHAN J.

dk

06-03-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

1. Sanjay Jalan Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. Sathish Respondent(s)

PRAYER To set aside the judgment dated 09.12.2025 of the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C.A.No.189 of 2025 against the judgment dated 27.01.2025 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court IV,