S.R. Sunil & Co vs D. Srinivasavaradan

S.R. SUNIL & CO. ...... APPELLANT

VERSUS

D. SRINIVASAVARADAN ...... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. A very limited prayer is made in this appeal.

It arises from the order of the High Court. Admittedly

a sum of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- had been borrowed by the

respondent from the appellant on the 5th October, 1996.

On 18th November, 1996, the respondent gave a cheque for

Rs.5,38,425/- towards the interest on the aforesaid

amount. This cheque was deposited in the bank on the 9th

of January, 1997 which was dishonoured on account of

insufficient funds. A complaint under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act was, accordingly, filed

and it was noticed that the only dispute was with

regard to the payment of the interest as the principal

amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- had already been paid within

Crl.A. 41 of 2005

2

time. The Trial Magistrate, accordingly, thought it

fit that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of

the Court and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- would meet the

ends of justice. A revision was thereafter filed by

the appellant and the same has been dismissed. The

present appeal has been filed praying that the sentence

of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine

of Rs. 5,000/- was completely unrealistic and contrary

to the law laid down in Suganthi Suresh Kumar v.

Jagadeeshan (2002) 2 SCC 420.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

In the afore-cited case, it has been highlighted that

the bouncing of cheque was a serious matter and not to

be dealt with lightly by the Court and a sentence

commensurate with the facts and the behaviour of the

accused must also be kept in mind. Undoubtedly the

principal amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- had been paid by

the accused but the interest which he had promised to

pay by way of the cheque could not be realised as the

cheque had bounced. It is also clear that despite the

fact that the complaint had been filed in the year

1996 and the matter has been pending for 15 years, he

has not made any attempt to make the payment. We,

therefore, feel that a deterrent sentence is called for

Crl.A. 41 of 2005

3

in the light of the aforesaid circumstances. We,

accordingly, direct the accused-respondent herein to

pay a compensation and fine of Rs. 5,38,425/- and in

default of payment to undergo two years simple

imprisonment. We give time upto the end of March, 2011

to make the payment failing which he will be taken into

custody to serve out his sentence.

3. The appeal stands disposed of.

...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] NEW DELHI JANUARY 27, 2011.