LexP. SURESH KUMAR versus R. SHANKER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
P. SURESH KUMAR II. R.SHANKAR MARCH 8, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Negotiable lnstrumpnts Act/Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Misc. Provisions Act, 2002; S.138/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Ss. 357 and 377: A B c Partnership firm-Joint Bank Account-Respondent allegedly withdrawn a sum of rupees twelve lakhs from the bank-Compromise-As per settlement respondent-accused handed over a post-dated Cheque for the amount in question in favour of other partner-Cheque dishonored- Complaint-Trial Court awarding seven lakhs as compensation and also imposed fine-Appeal filed by accused partly allowed by Sessions Court D affirming conviction under Section 138 of the Act but order of trial Court awarding compensation set aside-Revision petition dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Power of the Court to award compensation is not limited-Payment of compensation is somewhat different from payment of fine-Purpose of imposition of fine/compensation must be considered having E regard to relevant provisions under Cr.P.C.-Accused-partner admitted his liability and it was found so by Courts below-Respondent not preferring any appeal thereagainst-Section 377 Cr.P.C. not attracted-Hence, such findings of the Courts below do not warrant any interference-Accused has not been charged with any fraudulent action-Complainant had not preferred any appeal for enhancement of sentence-Interest of justice would be served F ,,); by directing accused to pay a sum of Rupees Seven Lakhs by way of compensation to appellant-partner-Directions issued. , ,I ~ ' Appellant and respondent were partners in a partnership business. There was joint account in the bank which had to be operated jointly by them. G Respondent alone as a partner, thus, could not have taken out any money from the bank. Respondent allegedly taken out money from the bank. Later, a compromise on certain terms was entered into by and between the respondent and other partner in a police Station. Pursuant to the agreement, the 649 H 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R. A respondent allegedly handed over a post-dated Cheque for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the appellant. As the said Cheque was dishonoured on 'I presentation, a complaint petition was filed by the appellant. Rejecting the defence of the respondent, Trial Court imposed a fine of Rs. 7 ,05,000/- on the accused-partner, and in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. An appeal filed thereagainst was partly allowed by the Court of Sessions. B Revision Petition filed by both the parties were dismissed by the High Court affirming the conviction of the respondent under the provisions of the Act as also the order qua the question of the payment of fine. Hence the present appeal ! C Appellant contended that the District Court and the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as they failed to take into consideration that the quantum of punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence and having regard to the amendment in the Act, it is a fit case where the respondent should have been awarded substantial punishment. D E F Respondent submitted that having regard to the fact that this Court had issued notice on enhancement of sentence; in terms of Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent would be entitled to contend that y no case had been made out for recording a judgment of conviction by the courts below; and that the defence of the respondent having regard to entering into a compromise by and between the parties was wrongly not accepted by the courts below, the same should have been considered by the courts in the light of the averments made by the complainant in the complaint petition. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a special statute. It provides inter alia. for imposition offine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque. [Para 13] (656-B] 1.2. Although the power of the court to impose a fine may or may not be G limited, it is not in dispute that the power to award compensation is not. The purpose for which such compensation is to be granted to the complainant whether in terms of clause (b) of Sub-section 1 of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Sub-section (3) of Section 357 is not of much significance for the purpose, although there cannot be any doubt w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.