Karnataka High Court Issues Directions For Lower Courts For Imposing Punishment In Cheque Bounce Cases
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC.
The Karnataka High Court issued directions for the Lower Courts for imposing the quantum of punishment in cheque bounce cases.
The Court dismissed a Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC, seeking to set aside the order of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).
A Single Bench of Justice JM Khazi remarked, “In the present case the trial Court taking into consideration the loan amount, time taken for conclusion of the trial and using its discretion the trial court sentenced the accused to pay fine of ₹7,20,000/- and directed payment of ₹7,15,000 to the complainant by way of compensation. However, the Sessions Court without assigning any justifiable reasons has reduced the fine to ₹5,50,000/-. The loan was of the year 2012. By the time the Session Courts disposed of the appeal on 07.11.2019, already seven years have elapsed. Considering the same, even the fine of ₹7,20,000/- imposed by the trial Court was on the lower side. Without proper application of mind, unnecessarily the Sessions Court has reduced the fine.”
Advocate Mahesh Kiran Shetty S appeared for the Petitioner, while Amicus Curiae Angad Kamath represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The complaint was filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, alleging that the Petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 45,00,000 from her and issued a cheque for the said amount. However, when the complainant presented the cheque for realisation, it was returned dishonoured as Funds insufficient.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted that “coming to the question whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reducing the fine amount. It is relevant to note that under Section 138 of the N.I Act, the Courts are given a discretion so far as the punishment is concerned, which may be imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, which may extend to twice the amount of cheque or with both.”
“Both the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record have rightly held that the allegations against accused are proved. The conclusion arrived at and findings given by them are consistent with the evidence placed on record and this Court finds no perversity in the same calling for interference,” the Bench held.
The Bench issued the following directions, “While imposing the punishment, the Courts are required to examine the following aspects:
1. The quantum of the loan
2. The defence taken by the accused, more particularly whether he has taken a false defence and failed to prove the same.
3. Whether the accused has dragged on the matter unnecessarily and thereby delayed the disposal of the case at the stage of trial, appeal, revision and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Whether the transaction relates to business between the parties or the parties are business class who would have utilized the amount for their business and flourish, or
5. In other cases, the returns the loan amount would have brought, if it was kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank etc.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “The impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2018 in C.C.No.6303/2015 on the file of Judge, Court of Small Causes and XXVI ACMM, Bengaluru and judgment and order dated 07.11.2019 in Crl.A.No.662/2018 on the file of LX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru are confirmed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: AV Poojappa v. SK Vagdevi (CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.13 OF 2020)
