Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) are common in India, often arising from business transactions gone sour. A frequent query from those involved is: 138 punishment for repayment and till raising of the court. This question highlights concerns about whether courts impose jail time merely till rising of the court or prioritize actual repayment to the complainant. Generally, courts aim to ensure recovery of the cheque amount rather than retribution, often opting for fines directed as compensation. This post breaks down the legal framework, key judicial trends, and practical implications based on established precedents.
Section 138 prescribes punishment of imprisonment up to two years, or a fine up to twice the cheque amount, or both. However, the Supreme Court has clarified that punishment here... is not a means of seeking retribution, but is more a means to ensure payment of money. The complainant's interest lies primarily in recovering the money rather than seeing the drawer of the cheque in jail. The threat of jail is only a mode to ensure recovery. Somnath Sarkar VS Utpal Basu Mallick - 2013 8 Supreme 382
Courts typically exercise discretion to impose fines or compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the CrPC, substituting or reducing imprisonment. This aligns with Chapter XVII's compensatory object. Imprisonment is not mandatory; instead, fines equivalent to or exceeding the cheque amount (up to twice, plus interest) are common, with default clauses for non-payment. R. Vijayan VS Baby - 2011 7 Supreme 356H. Pukhraj VS D. Parasmal - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 1126
Sentences like imprisonment till rising of the court or nominal fines (e.g., Rs. 5,000) are often labeled flea-bite punishments when the cheque amount remains unpaid. The Supreme Court in Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan condemned such leniency for defeating the NI Act's object: No drawer of the cheque can be allowed to take dishonour of the cheque issued by him light-heartedly. The very object of enactment... would stand defeated if the sentence is of the nature passed by the trial Magistrate. H. Pukhraj VS D. Parasmal - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 1126Gaurav Khullar VS Eleven V Industries - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 341
Appellate courts frequently modify these:- In one case, a Sessions Judge reduced 1-year rigorous imprisonment to till rising of the court but enhanced compensation to Rs. 2.75 lakhs (for a Rs. 2.5 lakhs cheque + interest), upheld with a 1-month default simple imprisonment. Meel Bai VS Rameshvar Prasad Chauhan - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015)- Another enhanced fine to Rs. 8.44 lakhs (cheque + interest), default 1-year simple imprisonment. Manoj Bithalkar VS P. K. Rai, S/o Late Shri D. P. Rai - 2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 667- Rs. 2.92 lakhs fine (cheque + interest), default 1-month simple imprisonment. Atharva Agro Chemical Pvt. Ltd. VS Gopal Chand Barik, S/o Shri Mohan Barik - 2021 0 Supreme(Chh) 150
This trend underscores that minimal sentences are inadequate without ensuring repayment. H. Pukhraj VS D. Parasmal - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 1126Gaurav Khullar VS Eleven V Industries - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 341
Courts follow a structured approach:1. Levy Fine: Up to twice the cheque amount under Section 138.2. Direct Compensation: Allocate from the fine to the complainant via Section 357(1)(b) CrPC. Section 357(3) is largely infructuous in NI Act cases. Somnath Sarkar VS Utpal Basu Mallick - 2013 8 Supreme 382R. Vijayan VS Baby - 2011 7 Supreme 356
In a notable error correction, the Supreme Court capped total liability where a High Court exceeded limits, directing Rs. 80,000 as compensation (from Rs. 1,00,000 fine) with 6 months default simple imprisonment for a Rs. 69,500 cheque. Somnath Sarkar VS Utpal Basu Mallick - 2013 8 Supreme 382
Pre-2006 magistrate fine limits (Rs. 5,000 under CrPC Section 29(2)) are overcome by Section 143 NI Act or Section 357. R. Vijayan VS Baby - 2011 7 Supreme 356Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel VS State Of Gujarat - 2001 1 Supreme 124
Judicial trends reinforce the compensatory emphasis. In Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., the Supreme Court noted: unlike other crimes, punishment in Section 138 cases is meant more to ensure payment of money rather than to seek retribution. BIRENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN VS SOHAN LAL KALA - 2021 Supreme(UK) 810
Other rulings highlight:- Lenient till rising of the court sentences set aside for government employees due to career impact, but compensation upheld (e.g., Rs. 5,000 paid). S. Thirumoorthy VS State rep by the Inspector of Police (Crime) Tirupur North - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 1924- Convictions with 1-day imprisonment till rising of court plus compensation (e.g., Rs. 1,27,000 under Section 357(3) CrPC) for female accused, considering circumstances. Omprakash VS L. Sunitha - 2015 Supreme(AP) 4Om Prakash VS L. Sunitha- Power of attorney holders can validly prosecute complaints, depose with personal knowledge, rebutting acquittals based on non-examination of complainants. Omprakash VS L. Sunitha - 2015 Supreme(AP) 4Omprakash VS L. Sunitha - 2015 Supreme(AP) 7- Failure to rebut presumptions under Sections 118/139 NI Act leads to conviction and compensation orders. T.Ramkumar vs Sivasamy - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 76577
These cases illustrate courts' flexibility while prioritizing recovery.
While the norm is enhanced fines, exceptions may apply:- Full Payment Pre-Order: Lenient sentences justified if cheque amount + interest paid. H. Pukhraj VS D. Parasmal - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 1126Gaurav Khullar VS Eleven V Industries - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 341- No Complainant Appeal: Courts may still enhance suo motu. Gaurav Khullar VS Eleven V Industries - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 341- Special Circumstances: Bona fides, low amounts, or prolonged litigation may limit to fines. Somnath Sarkar VS Utpal Basu Mallick - 2013 8 Supreme 382- Prior Deposits: Adjusted against compensation. Meel Bai VS Rameshvar Prasad Chauhan - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015)
In convictions with minimal punishment like till rising of the court:1. Enhance fine to cheque amount + 9% interest (≤ twice).2. Direct as compensation under Section 357(1)(b).3. Add default simple imprisonment (1-6 months).4. Hear parties on quantum.
This ensures uniformity, recovery, and cheque credibility. Parties should consider settlements or appeals focusing on repayment evidence.
Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your case.
But as per the judgment of the appellate court, he had to undergo simple imprisonment for one day till rising of court also. ... Learned counsel for the complainant would argue that reduction of the sentence by the appellate court into simple imprisonment for one day till rising of court and fine of Rs.6,10,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month, was too low a punishment, and the 2nd accused, if he ... The trial court foun....
The learned trial Court on the anvil of statement of the complainant has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. ... The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and considering the material on record, vide judgment dated 11.05.2018 convicted the accused under Sections 138 of N.I. ... The learned appellate Court vide the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2018 has set aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, allowed the appeal and eventually acquit....
When a cheque is issued and is treated as 'security' towards repayment of an amount with a time period being stipulated for repayment, all that it ensures is that such cheque which is issued as 'security' cannot be presented prior to the loan or the instalment maturing for repayment towards which such ... The appellate court, on re-appreciation of the facts and evidence, found that the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act was not liable to be disturbed and hence, the conviction was upheld. ... The....
Respondent’s further contention is that the impugned cheque was given as a security towards repayment of the amount within a time period being stipulated for repayment and it cannot be presented prior to the loan or the instalment maturing for repayment towards which such cheque has been issued as security ... When a cheque is issued and is treated as “security” towards repayment of an amount with a time period being stipulated for repayment, all that it ensures is that such cheque which is issued as “s....
Section 138 of the Act leads to the inference that there was merit in the complainant's version. Apart from not raising a probable defence, the appellant-accused was not able to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.” ... Now turning to the punishment to be awarded, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta reported in (2017)3 MWN (Crl) DCC 161 SC, has observed that the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the NI Ac....
The learned appellate Court sentenced the revision petitioner till raising of the day and he was directed to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation to complainant and one month time was granted and a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months was prescribed. ... Thus punishment rendered by the appellate Court is within the confines of the substantive provision in Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention of the revision petitioner. 19. ... It wa....
The learned appellate Court sentenced the revision petitioner till raising of the day and he was directed to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation to complainant and one month time was granted and a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months was prescribed. ... Thus punishment rendered by the appellate Court is within the confines of the substantive provision in Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention of the revision petitioner. ... It was b....
The learned appellate Court sentenced the revision petitioner till raising of the day and he was directed to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation to complainant and one month time was granted and a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months was prescribed. ... Thus punishment rendered by the appellate Court is within the confines of the substantive provision in Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention of the revision petitioner. ... It was b....
The Appellate Court, by the impugned judgment, upheld the conviction but further reduced the substantive sentence by ordering the first respondent to undergo simple imprisonment for one day (till the rising of the Court) and pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment ... (1) (b) of the Code; (ix) The execution of the sentence shall stand deferred till 6.12.2023; (x) The Registry is directed to forward a copy of the order to the Trial Court for compliance. ... There ar....
When a cheque is issued and is treated as ‘security’ towards repayment of an amount with a time period being stipulated for repayment, all that it ensures is that such cheque which is issued as ‘security’ cannot be presented prior to the loan or the instalment maturing for repayment towards which ... The High Court affirmed the finding of fact by the Trial Court that a part of the debt owed by the first respondent to the appellant was discharged and thus the notice of demand issued under Section #HL_ST....
This Court has held that unlike other crimes, punishment in Section 138 cases is meant more to ensure payment of money rather than to seek retribution. We say so having regard to a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. [Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 520 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1328] where this Court briefly examined the object sought to be achieved by the provisions of Section 138 and the purpose underlying the punishment provided therein.
Since the petitioner is a Government Employee, the said punishment will affect his legal right That apart, the revision petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and the same has not been challenged. Only, the petitioner has filed this revision as against the punishment of imprisonment till the raising of the Court.
Having regard to the nature of offence and the circumstances under which it was committed and considering that accused is a lady, it is ordered as follows: 1. Criminal Appeal No.768 of 2007 is allowed by setting aside the judgment in C.C.No.231 of 2006 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mobile (PCR), Adilabad. 2. The accused is convicted for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and she is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) day till raising of the trial Court. 3. Further, the accused is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,27,000....
The accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 09.02.2015 at 10.30 A.M. on a Court working day and on such surrender, the trial Court shall implement the sentence in the Court hall. 3. Further, the accused is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,27,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand only) to the complainant in terms of Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. and the said amount shall be deposited by the accused before the trial Court within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which trial Court shall resort to the steps permitted by law to realise it from t....
2. The accused is convicted for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and she is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) day till raising of the trial Court. The accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 09.02.2015 at 10.30 A.M. on a Court working day and on such surrender, the trial Court shall implement the sentence in the Court hall. Having regard to the nature of offence and the circumstances under which it was committed and considering that accused is a lady, it is ordered as follows: 1. Criminal Appeal No.768 of 2007 is allow....
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
