The Karnataka High Court recently modified the compensation awarded in a cheque bounce case. The court observed that a Trial Magistrate does not have the power to impose a fine that exceeds double the amount of the bounced cheque. The court noted that imposing a fine greater than double the cheque amount goes beyond the jurisdiction of the Trial Magistrate under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). Additionally, the court highlighted that the case involved two private parties and no state machinery was involved, so there was no need to impose expenses on the state.
Background of the Case
The accused in this case was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act for issuing a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000 that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The Senior Civil Judge initially ordered the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 4,30,000, which included Rs. 4,00,000 as compensation to the complainant and Rs. 30,000 as defraying expenses to the State. The accused appealed this decision, but the Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, upholding the previous ruling. Subsequently, the accused filed a revision petition before the Karnataka High Court.
High Court’s Decision
The High Court found that both the Trial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge had misdirected themselves on two aspects. Firstly, the complainant had not provided any foundation in the complaint or evidence to seek a fine amount that is double the cheque amount. The court stated that there was no justification for imposing a fine greater than double the cheque amount and that a reasonable amount of fine should be imposed along with compensation to the complainant. The High Court held that the accused had a case for interference in the sentence and partly allowed the petition. As a result, the fine amount was reduced to Rs. 3,25,000.
Conclusion
In summary, the Karnataka High Court modified the compensation awarded in a cheque bounce case, stating that a Trial Magistrate does not have the power to impose a fine greater than double the cheque amount. The court found that the previous rulings had misdirected themselves on this matter and reduced the fine amount to Rs. 3,25,000. It is important to note that this information is based on the available search results and the specific details of the case.
