RAMCHANDRA RAJU GAUD Vs. VISHAL AMBADAS DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Revision, the complainant has challenged the order dated 13-7-2000, passed by the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Beed, whereby the respondent/ accused has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act (N. I. Act) and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo s. I. for three months. Admittedly, cheque amount is of Rs. 79,000/ -. After considering the material placed on record, including the hearing given to the accused, the Court has held that the prosecution proved that on 10-1-1997 the accused drew a cheque for payment of rs. 79,000/- to the complainant for the discharge of liability, which had been returned by the Bank unpaid because of an insufficient amount and that the accused failed to pay the said amount to the complainant within the time even after the demand notice.

(2.) Considering the scheme of the N. I. Act, the civil liability, in a way, is treated as an offence. But treating the same, as an offence, and a punishment itself is not sufficient and will not serve the purpose, if the object and purpose of the N. I. Act is taken note of. The whole idea is to see, in such transaction and/or in a business, transactions especially concerning the instruments under N. I. Act, the person should get his money back as early as possible. I am of the view that mere sentence or conviction or putting the particular accused in a jail will not serve the purpose and object of the N. I. Act. The money paid must be received back by the person within the stipulated time and/or as early as possible. Withholding of the amount under cheque, though agreed upon, will definitely cause injustice to the party concerned. It is expected that a cheque is like a cash, subject to deposit in a Bank. It is further expected that the moment the cheque is deposited, it should be honoured. But if the cheque is dishonoured and though demanded and not paid, the proceedings under Section 138 of the N. I. Act need to be invoked.

(3.) In the present case, the Court has convicted the respondent/accused under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, but awarded sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- only, though the amount of the cheque is Rs. 79,000/ -.