R. VIJAYAN versus BABY AND ANR.

Citation: [2011] 14 S.C.R. 712 · Decided: 11-10-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 712 
R. VIJAYAN 
v. 
BABY AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1902 of 2011) 
OCTOBER 11, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Negotiable instruments Act, 1881: 
c 
s. 138 - Sentencing under - Respondent found guilty u/ 
s.138 - Magistrate sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs.2000 
and in default to undergo imprisonment and also directed her 
to pay Rs. 20, 000 as compensation to the complainant and 
in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months 
D - Held: Magistrate having levied fine of Rs. 2, 0001-, it was 
impermissible to levy any compensation having regard to 
s.357(3), Cr.P.C. - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s.357(3). 
s. 138 - Methods to improve the disposal of cases ul 
E s. 138 of the Act - Suggested. 
s. 138 - Purpose of enactment - Held: Cases arising ul 
s. 138 are really civil cases masquerading as criminal cases 
-
The avowed object of Chapter XVII of the Act is to 
F •encourage the culture of use of cheques and enhance the 
credibility of the instrument" - It provides a single forum and 
single proceeding, for enforcement of criminal liability (for 
dishonouring the cheque) and for enforcement of the civil 
liability (for realization of the cheque amount) thereby 
G obviating the need for the creditor to move two different fora 
for relief - The apparent intention is to ensure that not only the 
offender is punished, but also ensure that the complainant 
invariably receives the amount of the cheque by way of 
compensation uls.357(1)(b), Cr.P.C. -
Uniformity and 
H 
712 
R. VIJAYAN v. BABY AND ANR. 
713 
consistency in deciding similar cases by different courts, not A 
only increase the credibility of cheque as a negotiable 
instrument, but also the credibility of courts of justice. 
s.143(1) - Imposition of fine - Held: s.143(1) provides 
that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of 8 
Criminal Procedure, 1973, all offences under Chapter XVII of 
the Act should be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the First 
Class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of 
ss.262 to 265 of the Code (relating to summary trials) shall, 
as far as may be, apply to such trials - The proviso thereto 
provides that it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a C 
sentence of imprisonment for a term extending one year and 
an amount of fine exceeding Rs.5,0001-, in case of conviction 
in a summary trial under that section - In view of conferment 
of such special power and jurisdiction upon the First Class 
Magistrate, the ceiling as to the amount of fine stipulated in 
D 
s.29(2) of the Code is removed-' Consequently, in regard to 
any prosecution for offences punishable u/s. 138 of the Act, a 
First Class Magistrate may impose a fine exceeding Rs.50001 
-, the ceiling being twice the amount of the cheque. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.357(3) - Award of compensation - Heid: Sub-section 
(3) of s.357 is categorical that compensation can be awarded 
only where fine does not form part of the sentence - Where 
the sentence imposed does not include a fine, that is, where 
the sentence relates to only imprisonment, the court, when 
passing judgment, can direct the accused to pay, by way of 
compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order 
E 
F 
to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason 
G 
of the act for which the accused person has been so 
sentenced- Sub-section (1) of s.357 provides that where the 
court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence of which fine 
forms a part, the Court may direct the ftne amount to be 
applied in the payment to any person of compensation for 
any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation 
H 
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A is, in the opinion of the court, recoverable by such person in 
a Civil Court - Thus, if compensation could be paid from out 
of the fine, there is no need to award separate compensation 
- Only where the sentence does not include fine but only 
imprisonment and the court finds that the person who has 
s suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act of the accused 
person, requires to be compensated, it is permitted to award 
compensation uls.357(3) - Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 
- Compensation. 
The accused-first respondent issued a cheque for 
C Rs.20,000 in favour of the complainant-appellant towards 
repayment of a loan. The cheque got dishonoured when 
presented for payment. The appellant sent notice to the 
first responde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.