SUGANTHI SURESH KUMAR versus JAGDEESHAN

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 269 · Decided: 15-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SUGANTHI SURESH KUMAR 
A 
v. 
JAGDEESHAN 
JANUARY 15, 2002 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, I 950: 
~ 
: 
Article 141-Law declared by Supreme Court-Binding nature of- c 
Held : It is impermissible for the High Court to overrule the decision of the 
Supreme Court on the ground that the Supreme Court laid down the law 
without considering any other point-Such a law would hold good unless 
overruled by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court-Practice and Procedure. 
Negotiable Instruments Act, I 88 I : 
D 
Section 138-Dishonour of cheque-Sentence-Principles-Held: It should 
be the look out of the trial Magistrates to impose such sentence as to give 
proper effect to the object of legislation-No drawer of a cheque can be 
allowed to take dishonour of cheque issued by him light heartedly. 
The respondent-accused was convicted for an offence under Section E 
138 of the Negotiable Instruments At, 1881 and sentenced to undergo 
imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. 
• 
The appellant-complainant filed a criminal revision petition before the 
High Court contending that the sentence was grossly inadequate and that 
the trial court ought to have at least invoked Section 357(3) of the Code F 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, the High Court dismissed the 
revision petition. Hence this appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
I 
HELD : I.I. It is impermissible for the High Court to overrule the G 
I 
~ 
""' 
decision of the apex Court on the ground that the Supreme Court laid down 
the legal position without considering any other point. It is not only a matter 
of discipline for the High Courts in India, it is the mandate of the Constitution 
as provided in Article 141 that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall 
be binding on all courts within the territory of India. [273-C-D) 
H 
269 
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) I S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. The High Court cannot question the correctness of the decision of 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
the Supreme Court even though the point sought before the High Court was 
not considered by the Supreme Court. [273-E) 
Anil Kumar Neotia v. Union of India, AIR (1988) SC 1353, relied on. 
2. When this Court pronounced that a court may enforce an order to 
pay compensation "by imposing a sentence in default" it is open to all courts 
in India to follow the said course. The said legal position would continue to 
hold good until it is overruled by a larger Bench of this court. [273-G) 
Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, (1988) 4 SCC 551 and Ba/raj v. State of 
UP, AIR (1995) SC 1935, relied on. 
Rajendra v. Jose, (20111) 3 KL T 431 (Ker), overruled. 
3. In a case where the amount covered by the cheque remained unpaid it 
should be the lookout of the trial Magistrates that the sentence for the offence 
under Section 138 of the Negotiate Instruments Act, 1881 should be of such 
a nature as to give proper ~ffect to the object of the legislation. No drawer of 
the cheque can be allowed to take dishonour of the cheque issued by him light 
heartedly. The very object of enactment of provisions like Section 138 of the 
Act would stand defeated if the sentence is "imprisonment till the rising of 
the court" as passed by the trial Magistrate. It is a different matter if the 
accused paid the amount at least during the pendency of the case. 
[274-C-D) 
K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an, [1999[ 7 SCC 510 and Hari 
Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, [1988) 4 SCC 551, relied on. 
Pankaj Bhai Nagjibhai Patet v. State of Gujarat, 120011 2 sec 595, 
referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 65-
66 of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.4.200 I of the Chennai High 
Court in Cr!. R.P. Nos. 118 and 119 of 200 I. 
K.V. Viswanathan, Kunwar Ajit Mohan Singh and K.V. Venkataraman for 
the Appellant. 
... 
: 
... 
,... 
; 
S.S. KUMAR v. JAGDEESHAN [THOMAS, J.] 
271 
T. Raja for the Respondent. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THOMAS, J. Leave granted. 
Appellant in this case is the complainant before the court of 9th B 
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The offence pitted against the 
respondent was under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In fact 
there were two complaints arising out of two sets of cheques which were 
dishonoured by the drawee bank. The trial Magistrate after holding the 
respondent guilty of the offence convicted him of the aforesaid offence but C 
sentenced hiin only to undergo impris

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.