NI Act| While Sentencing Criminal Court Must Keep Compensatory Part In Mind To Commensurate Cheque Amount As Compensation For Complainant: Kerala HC
|The Kerala High Court held that while sentencing the Criminal Courts must keep the compensatory part in mind to commensurate the cheque amount, that is to be appropriated towards compensation payable to the complainant under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The Court allowed the Revision Petition against the order of the Trial Court modifying the sentencing of the First Respondent by ordering to undergo simple imprisonment for one day while dismissing the appeal.
“A reading of Chapter XVII of the Act and the laudable object sought to be achieved by the legislation, and its interpretation on the point of sentencing, leaves no room for any doubt that the criminal court while sentencing an accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Act has to keep the compensatory part in mind, which has to be commensurate to the cheque amount and not to exceed twice the amount, so that it can be appropriated towards the compensation payable to the complainant under Section 357 of the Code”, Justice C.S. Dias noted.
Advocate B. Pramod appeared for the Petitioner and Senior Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha M.K. appeared for the Respondent.
The Petitioner approached the Court alleging the First Respondent had committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The Court convicted the First Respondent for the said offence and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for one month with a fine. The First Respondent appealed the decision, whereby the Court reduced the substantive sentence by ordering the First Respondent to undergo simple imprisonment for one day while dismissing the appeal. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the sentencing, the Petitioner approached the High Court by way of a Criminal Revision Petition.
The Court held that under Section 138 of the NI Act, the person convicted is liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term that may extend up to two years or with a fine or both.
The Court observed that sentencing is a matter of discretion that must be exercised sparingly, especially when it is not guided by any statute. The Court noted that sentencing is the stage of the criminal delivery system where the judge decides the punishment of the convict.
The Court observed, “Sentencing is a matter of discretion and is an arduous challenge for a judge. The discretion of sentencing needs to be exercised judiciously, especially when it is not guided by any statute. Sentencing is that stage of the criminal delivery system where the judge decides the punishment of the convict. It is said that justice knows no friends and has no foes, but the law is to be administered with a hard hand, and justice cannot be diluted for sympathy”.
Therefore, the Court held that the impugned order was against the well-settled principles and allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Sasikumar v Ushadevi (2023:KER:61128)