Rebume cases accused in check should not be equated with those convicted under other criminal statutes: Superior Court of Karnataka

The Superior Court of Karnataka recently observed that a defendant who has suffered an order of conviction in a prosecution under section 138 of the Law of Negotiable Instruments related to Check Dishonor should not be equated with that of a defendant who has been convicted by other statutes penalties

Justice v Srishaananda held that way while leaving aside the imprisonment of six months transmitted to a Kumar Churiwala sushil by the Court of First Instance together with the payment of the fine while “keeps the sentence order.”

“From the instructions of the Atx Hon’ble Court in the case of the Association of the Supra Bank, it is clear that the Prosecutor’s Office under section 138 of the negotiable instrument law is in the nature of the quasi -civil and quasi -criminal nature. Therefore, The courts, while exercising their discretion at the time of approved the appropriate sentence in a given case, have the right to use their discretionary power in the award of imprisonment or fine or with both. In any case, a defendant who has suffered a sentence order in a prosecution under section 138 of the negotiable instrument law should not be equated with that of a defendant who has been convicted of other criminal statutes“The court said.

The petitioner was convicted and said that before the deposit of the compensation could be made as indicated by the Court of First Instance, he was arrested in accordance with the order issued by the wise magistrate of judgment and sent to the judicial custody 02.08.2022. He was ordered to be released on 10.08.2022 approved by this Court. From then on, he was released from custody on 15.08.2022.

Therefore, he requested the modification of the sentence order with respect to a sentence of six months of prison ordered by the Judge of Judgment and renouncing the sum of RS.10,000/- which has been ordered to be paid as suspension expenses of the State.

The defendant opposed the declaration that, given that the law contemplates the imposition of fine and imprisonment or imprisonment or both, in a certain case even without presenting the request for review to the extent that the insufficiency of the amount of compensation, The plaintiff can support the order of scholars. The judgment magistrate to the extent that it is the part of imprisonment and, therefore, the request for review must be dismissed.

In addition, given that the amount in a sum of RS.22,00,000/- is paid for a period of time, taking note of the object of the negotiable instrument law to allow twice the amount of fine as the amount of compensation And the imprisonment is also being contemplated, the amount of compensation needs improvement in case the review petitioner wants to obtain the imprisonment.

Recommendations:

The Bank pointed out that the framers of the legislation in section 138 granted the discretion so that the magistrate of known trial imposes twice the amount of check as a fine or imprisonment for a maximum period of two years or both.

Then he said “Perhaps when the Legislature incorporated section 138 in the Law of Negotiable Instruments, it does not provide that a huge amount of litigation would be mounted for a period of time in which the courts are loaded with the pendency of the private complaints filed by virtue of the section 138 of the negotiable instrument law ”.

The Superior Court referred to the Decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association & Ors v. Union of India & Ors (2014), as well as Suo Motu Pil registered by the Apex Court, where he approved an order on April 16, 2021, establishing instructions for the formulation of guidelines for the elimination of criminal prosecutions under Section 138 or Law.

Subsequently, the Superior Court said: “Criminal courts throughout the country must exercise a different mentality when dealing with criminal prosecution by virtue of section 138 of the negotiable instrument law.“

Also, he said “This court, although sitting in the jurisdiction of review, while appreciating the reasons urged in the name of the accused/review petitioner can exercise its power very well to the only factor, namely if in a given case, the orderly sentence is an appropriate sentence or prayer No. Although the review powers are limited, the court enjoys the broad power to order an appropriate sentence since the LIS also continues in this review.. ”

Consequently, while allowing the request in part of the court, he said: “When the factual aspects of the present case are analyzed, since the accused/review petition has already compiled the payment of the amount of total compensation of RS.22,00,000/- as mentioned supra and was in custody from 02.08.2022 to 15.08.2022, this court is of the opinion considered that six months in prison ordered by the magistrate of trial learned, in addition to the payment of the amount of compensation, it must be reserved. ”

Appearance: HEMACHANDRA RAI LAWYER FOR LAWYER NEHru MN for the petitioner.

Brijesh Eduupuganti lawyer, for lawyer Ramakrishnan S, for responding.

No: 2025 LIVELAW (KAR) 33

Case title: Sushil Kumar Churiwala and Akshay Bansal

No case: request for criminal review no. 1043 of 2022

Click here to read/download order