AJAY BANSAL Vs. NIRMAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for consideration in this petition is : Whether the trial Court, while imposing sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') should normally take course of Section 375 (3) of the code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for awarding suitable compensation to the extent of double the amount of the dishonoured cheque, particularly when the amount of dishonoured cheque remains unpaid ?

(2.) IN this case, the respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1. 50 lacs from the petitioner in the year 2000. In discharge of that liability, she issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner with the assurance that the same would be encashed as and when presented in the bank. The petitioner presented the said cheque in the bank for encashment, which was dishonoured. After issuing a legal notice, when the amount of cheque was not paid, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the respondent. In the complaint, the following prayer was made : "it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the complaint of the complainant be registered, the accused be summoned, tried and punished with a sentence of one year and fine and compensation of double of amount of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended upto date. "

(3.) BEFORE the trial Court, the respondent, in her statement under Section 313 of the Code, denied the charges and claimed false implication. It was pleaded by her that the amount was never advanced to her.