No Minimum Punishment Provided For Offence U/s. 138 NI Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Modifies Sentence ‘Till The Rising Of The Court’
The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, but modified the sentence of simple imprisonment.
Justice Virender Singh, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has modified the quantum of punishment in a cheque bounce case to undergo punishment ‘till the rising of the Court,’ while pointing out that no minimum punishment has been provided for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The Court upheld the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, but modified the sentence of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Virender Singh held, “In the absence of any sentencing policy, although, the same is in the exclusive domain of the trial Court, but, considering the subsequent development, i.e. the deposit of the compensation amount by the accused and the nature of the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, this Court is of the view that the punishment, in the present case, is on the higher side.”
Advocate Anirudh Sharma appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Sudhir Thakur represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Revision was preferred by the Petitioner against the Judgment passed by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court had dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held that “this Court is of the view that the findings, so recorded by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, do not fall within the definition of ‘perverse findings’. As such, the same do not require any interference, by this Court.”
“However, in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, i.e. the deposit of the entire amount of compensation, by the accused, and the nature and scope of the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, in the considered opinion of this Court, once, the entire amount of compensation has been deposited and that the complainant has not filed anyappeal, or proceedings, for enhancement of compensation, the order of sentence, passed by the learned trial Court, is liable to be interfered with, as, law is good, but, justice is better,” the Bench explained.
The Bench held, “In the light of the aforesaid decision and considering the fact that under the NI Act, no minimum punishment has been provided, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, this Court is of the view that the quantum of punishment is liable to be modified. Consequently, the ends of justice would be met, in case, the accused is sentenced to undergo punishment ‘till the rising of the Court’.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In view of the above, the judgment of conviction, passed by the learned trial Court, is upheld, but, the appeal is partly allowed, to the extent of quantum of sentence, by modifying the same, as mentioned above.”
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Dinesh Negi v. Sahil Sood (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:14229)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Anirudh Sharma
Respondent: Senior Advocate Sudhir Thakur; Advocate Somesh Sharma
