Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjana Prakash Desai and N.V. Ramana, JJ.
Nagpal Traders - Appellant
Versus
Davinder Singh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1510-1512 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 6647-6649 of 2013)
Decided On : 22-07-2014
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 – Acquittal – Challenge his conviction – Tenant - Additional amount of fine deposited by respondent before trial court was ordered to be released to complainant-firm forthwith - High Court observed that in case respondent fails to deposit the additional amount of fine before trial court within one month from date of judgment petitions will be deemed to have been dismissed – Held, Court may also refer to judgment of this Court in case where this Court has while considering as to how the appeal should be disposed of by the appellate court when there is no challenge to conviction observed that it is obligation of Court to decide appeal on merits and not accept concession and proceed to deal with sentence, for said mode and method defeats fundamental purpose of the justice delivery system - This Court further noted that there are many cases where High Courts after recording non-challenge to conviction, have proceeded to dwell upon proportionality of quantum of sentence - It was observed that such a course is impermissible in law and should not be resorted to respectfully agree with this view of this Court are dealing with one of such cases - In our opinion, the High Court should not have shown leniency to respondent - Court will have to therefore rectify error committed by High Court - So far as question of concurrency is concerned it is clear from averments made in complaints and judgments of trial court and lower appellate court that cheques in question do not relate to one single transaction - judgments cited by learned counsel for respondent have therefore, no application to this case - Besides respondent has shown disrespect to this Court - Taking an overall view of matter Court are inclined to set aside impugned order and restore orders of trial court If the amounts had been paid to complainant there perhaps would have been justification for imposing a flea-bite sentence as had been chosen by trial court - But in a case where amount covered by cheque remained unpaid it should be the lookout of trial Magistrates that sentence for offence under Section 138 should be of such a nature as to give proper effect to the object of legislation - No drawer of cheque can be allowed to take dishonor of cheque issued by him light-heartedly - Very object of enactment of provisions like Section 138 of Act would stand defeated if sentence is of nature passed by trial Magistrate - It is a different matter if the accused paid amount at least during pendency of case – Appeal disposed
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. The appellant before us is the complainant. The complainant is a firm ("complainant-firm"). The respondent is the accused. By the impugned order the High Court disposed of three revision petitions filed by the respondent.
3. The case of the complainant-firm is that the respondent had dealings with the complainant-firm and as per account books of the complainant-firm upto 31/03/2002 an amount of Rs.14,74,753.40 was due from the respondent to the complainant-firm. To repay the said amount the respondent issued three cheques, two in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) each and one in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh only). The cheques when presented, were dishonoured. The complainant-firm issued legal notices in respect of the three dishonoured cheques. As the money was not paid, three complaints came to be filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the NI Act").
4. The trial court convicted the respondent in each case for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in each of the three complaints. The Sessions Court dismissed the respondent's appeals.
5. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal, the respondent filed three revision applications in the High Court. The impugned order indicates that during the course of hearing, counsel for the respondent made a statement that the respondent does not want to challenge his conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act. Counsel submitted that the sentence awarded in all the three cases be ordered to run concurrently. The High Court maintained the conviction of the respondent under Section 138 of the NI Act. However, the High Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years RI to one year RI in each of the three cases. The High Court ordered the sentence in all the three cases to run concurrently. The respondent was directed to deposit an additional amount of fine to the tune of Rs.20,000/- in each case before the trial court within one month from the date of judgment. The additional amount of fine deposited by the respondent before the trial court was ordered to be released to the complainant-firm forthwith. The High Court observed that in case the respondent fails to deposit the additional amount of fine before the trial court within one month from the date of judgment, the petitions will be deemed to have been dismissed. The said order is challenged by the complainant-firm in these appeals.
6. We are informed that the additional amount of fine imposed by the High Court has been deposited by the respondent as directed by the High Court and the complainant-firm has received the said amount. This fact has been confirmed by the counsel for the complainant-firm. We are also informed by the counsel for the respondent that the respondent has undergone one year's sentence and he is a free citizen today.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant-firm submitted that learned Magistrate had rightly sentenced the respondent to undergo RI for two years in each of the three cases. Counsel submitted that since the amount involved in the three cases was about Rs.14,74,753/-, the High Court ought not to have shown leniency and reduced the sentence to one year's RI in each case and grant concurrency without assigning any reasons for the lenient view. In support of her submissions, counsel relied on State of U.P. v. Chandrika, (1999) 8 SCC 638, Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan, (2002) 2 SCC 420 and Jeetu @ Jitendra & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 11 SCALE 630. Counsel submitted that the High Court wrongly granted concurrency because the three cheques related to three different transactions.
8. Counsel for the respondent submitted that benefit of concurrency was rightly granted by the High Court because the complaints arise out of a single transaction and the cheques also pertain to that single transaction. In support of this contention, the coun
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
