| Home |
Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 357(1), 421 & 431 - Court has no power to impose default sentence of imprisonment for non payment of compensation - Only recovery proceedings can be initiated. (Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Padmanabhan) 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (Kerala) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0577
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Should be of such a nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation - However, it is a different matter if the accused paid the amount atleast during the pendency of the case. (Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs Jagdeeshan) 2002(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 126 (S.C.) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0607
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence of fine - Quantum - Cheque amount Rs.1.5 lacs and fine imposed Rs.15,000/- - Fine enhanced to Rs.3 lacs out of which Rs.2.95 lacs payable to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- to be appropriated to the State and in default accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. (Bhavani Vs D.C.Doddarangaiah) 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (Karnataka)
Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 29 - Sentence and fine - Magistrate of First Class is empowered to impose sentence of not more than 3 years and fine can't exceed Rs.5,000/- but u/s 357 Cr.P.C. Magistrate can award any amount of compensation - If Magistrate thinks to impose sentence more severe, in that case u/s 325 Cr.P.C. he is to record his opinion and submit his proceedings and forward the accused to Chief Judicial Magistrate - In the instant case Magistrate imposed a sentence of six months and a fine of Rs.83,000/- - Sentence portion retained and accused to pay Rs.83,000/- to the complainant as compensation. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 29, 325, 357). (Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat) 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 185 (S.C.) : 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0729
Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 357 - Dishonour of cheque - Fine of Rs.20,000/- imposed - Order not valid - Magistrate cannot impose fine exceeding Rs.5,000/- besides imprisonment - High Court also cannot impose a sentence or fine exceeding the said limit - Magistrate can alleviate the grievance of the complainant and can award any amount as compensation. (P.Mazher Vs State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor) 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 491 (A.P.)
Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 357(1) - Appellate Court has power to award compensation or fixing the quantum of compensation either by reversing or modifying the sentence of the trial Court. (Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Padmanabhan) 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (Kerala) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0577
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Accused convicted and sentenced to one year RI and a fine of Rs.4000/- - During revision accused paid the amount of cheque and fine - Accused remained in custody for 18 days - Sentence reduced to already undergone. (Sat Pal Vs State of Punjab) 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 571 (P&H) = 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 151 (P&H)
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Amount involved Rs.4,50,000/- Trial Court imposed imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.5,000/- - Amount neither paid in trial Court nor during the pendency of revision in High Court or in Supreme Court - Held, sentence passed is grossly inadequate - Case sent to trial Court for passing appropriate sentence after hearing both sides. (Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs Jagdeeshan) 2002(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 126 (S.C.) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0607
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque amount Rs.55,000/- - Fine of Rs.60,000/- and in default accused to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment - If amount of fine recovered Rs.58,000/- out of that to be paid to the complainant - Order is valid in view of Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. (S.Manjunath Vs L.Suresh) 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 64 (Kant.)
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque amount Rs.Three lacs - Sentence of simple imprisonment of one month - Compensation of Rs.3,10,000 payable under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of compensation further simple imprisonment of sixty days. (Anilkumar Vs Shammy) 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (Kerala) = 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (Kerala)
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Normally in a successful prosecution u/s 138, a direction under Section 357 Cr.P.C. must follow. (Anilkumar Vs Shammy) 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (Kerala) = 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (Kerala)
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Trial Court awarding six months simple imprisonment - Accused paying amount due under cheque and interest thereon pending appeal - Held, no useful purpose would be served by sending accused back to jail - Imposing penalty of fine would meet ends of justice - Sentence substituted with fine of Rs.5,000/- . (Narsingh Das Tapadia Vs Goverdhan Das Partani & Anr.) 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 408 (S.C.) : 2000(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 129 (S.C.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0690
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction in two separate cases - Sentences to run concurrently. (Satpal Chaudhary Vs Kuldip Mahajan) 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 666 (P&H) = 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (P&H)
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Deposit of amount in Court during pendency of case - Does not absolve accused of criminal liability - In matter of awarding sentence it may have some effect - Complaint cannot be quashed on account of deposit of money in Court. (Rajneesh Aggarwal Vs Amit J.Bhalla) 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 122 (S.C.)
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Subsequent filing of a civil suit and attaching property of the respondent - Not a ground for lessening the gravity of the offence or to impose a minor sentence. (Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs Jagdeeshan) 2002(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 126 (S.C.) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0607
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Trial by Chief Judicial Magistrate - Accused found guilty and fine of Rs.60,000/- imposed and in default accused to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment - Held, order of Chief Judicial Magistrate in imposing the fine is valid. (S.Manjunath Vs L.Suresh) 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 64 (Kant.)
Section 138 - Rigorous imprisonment - Can be awarded only in rarest of rare case where Magistrate is absolutely certain that the accused has calculatedly and designedly cheated the payee of the cheque as proceedings u/s 138 of the Act is of a summary trial and it is not obligatory on the part of Magistrate to hear the accused regarding the sentence - A heavy duty is cast on the Magistrate to satisfy himself as to the absolute necessity to award rigorous imprisonment, keeping in mind the very purpose of punishment. (Omanakuttan Pillai Vs State of Kerala) 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 225 (Kerala) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0181
Section 138 - Sentence - Magistrate of First Class can impose fine exceeding Rs.5,000/-. (B.Harikrishna Vs Macro Links Private Limited & Anr.) 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (Kant.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0718
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Accused convicted and fine also imposed - Accused served the sentence but unable to deposit amount of fine - There is no provision in the Negotiable Instruments Act for recovery of fine - Complainant to file civil suit. (Ramnath Vs Jagdish Prasad Garg) 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 43 (Raj.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0610
SectionS 138, 142 - Dishonour of cheque - Fine - Fine equivalent to amount of cheque imposed - Order set aside - Magistrate not competent to impose fine exceeding Rs.5000/- - Magistrate can however award compensation to any extent when sentence of fine is not imposed. (M/s A.M.Agencies Vs United Phosphorus Ltd.) 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 146 (A.P.)
|