SAJEEV Vs. THRIVENI CREDIT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a criminal court simultaneously impose a sentence of fine and a direction for payment of compensation under S.357 (3) CrPC This interesting question arises for consideration in this revision petition, which is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) In the nature of the contentions raised before me, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any detail. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Notice of demand though duly received and acknowledged, did not evoke any reply. Though discharge was the plea urged, no evidence was adduced to prove that plea. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in proving all ingredients of the offence punishable under S.138 of the N. I. Act.

(3.) The Trial Court imposed the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 13,000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The appellate court reduced and modified the sentence of imprisonment to one of imprisonment till rising of court. But thereafter the court surprisingly proceeded to impose a sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000 coupled with a direction for payment of compensation of the actual cheque amount of Rs. 10,752. Separate default sentences were imposed for the fine amount as well as the compensation amount.