Smt. Bhavani vs D.C. Doddarangaiah and Another

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—This petition is filed u/s 397 of the Cr. P.C. against the order of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C. No. 6717 of 1997. The petitioner is the complainant. She prosecuted a private complaint u/s 200 of the Cr. P.C. against the respondent alleging commission of offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Trial Court after holding valid trial, passed the judgment of conviction and imposed sentence of fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Out of the fine amount, Rs. 12,000/- is directed to be payable as compensation to the complainant. In this regard, the complainant (revision petitioner) contends that sentence of fine imposed is grossly inadequate and does not commensurate with the nature of crime and the value thereof.

The complainant''s case is that a cheque for Rs. 1,50,000/- was issued which came to be dishonoured and thus it was contended that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act attracts and as such the respondent is liable for conviction and penalty as per law.

The Trial Court has upheld the contention of the complainant and found the accused-respondent guilty. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for three types of punishment, namely, sentence of imprisonment with fine to an extent of one year or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque or with both.

The Trial Court has levied punishment of fine only to an extent of Rs. 15,000/- and not the amount which represents the cheque value or double of it.

Being aggrieved by the inadequate fine amount levied, the present revision is filed.

A contention is raised in the revision that it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate while convicting the accused to impose a punish ment of fine which should be twice the amount of cheque. This Court has relied upon the decision in the case of B. Harikrishna Vs. Macro Links Private Limited, Bangalore and Another, in support of the said contention. The learned Single Judge while hearing this matter, disagreed with the view taken in the aforesaid decision and therefore referred the matter to the Division Bench. Accordingly, the Division Bench after hearing the parties, has now laid down thus:

"It would be almost obligatory on the part of the Trial Court when the case has ended in a conviction to award a compensation that would be commensurate with the legal principles of fair play and this in our view having regard to the provision of Section 117 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which should not be less than the face value of the cheque, the interest computed at 18% per annum and the costs that may be computed by the Court. There is a distinct reason why the Legislature has provided for the upper limit of twice the face value of the cheque the reason being that having regard to the loss of interest and the costs involved that if the compensation or the fine were to be limited to the face value of the '' cheque, it could result in manifest injustice to the aggrieved party and the wrong-doer being benefitted. In order to offset this injustice, the Legislature has provided for the upper limit of twice the face value of the cheque and in our considered view no Trial Court would be justified in overlooking this important aspect of the law".

In view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench, I deem it appropriate that in this case the order of the Trial Court in levying sentence of fine of Rs. 15,000/- has to be modified and to be enhanced to twice the cheque amount which will be in a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 2,95,000/- shall be payable to the complainant as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- to be appropriated to the State, in default, the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

Fee of Rs. 1,000/- is payable to the Amicus Curiae.