Convener News Desk
Bandipora, March 3: A local court in Sumbal convicted and sentenced a man to one year of simple imprisonment and imposed a ₹12 lakh fine in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Sumbal, Rahila Rashid, delivered the sentence after finding Ghulam Hassan Bhat of Kathpora Hajin guilty of issuing a dishonored cheque to the complainant, Bashir Ahmad Dar of the same village.
The case, filed in 2017, involved financial transactions where the accused failed to honor his legal obligations resulting in cheque bounce.
While the defense argued for leniency, citing that the offense was financial in nature and not one of moral turpitude, the complainant’s counsel stressed that dishonoring a cheque undermines public trust in financial transactions and called for strict punishment.
After considering both sides, the court ruled that a balance needed to be maintained between deterrence and compensation. The judge ordered the convict to serve a one-year jail term and pay ₹12 lakh in compensation to the complainant. The convict has been directed to serve the sentence at District Jail Pulwama.
Counsel for the convict Advocate Tariq M Shah submitted that offense carries a maximum punishment of two years imprisonment or fine up to twice the cheque amount or both, so Court may take a lenient view while deciding the quantum of sentence the offense under Section 138 NI Act is not one involving moral turpitude, violence, or grave threat to public safety.
“It is a financial dispute that essentially arises from a commercial transaction or business dealings, and hence, the primary objective of the law is to ensure compensation rather than punitive punishment”.
Advocate Shah further submitted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that in cases under Section 138 NI Act, the primary focus should be on compensating the complainant rather than punishing the accused with imprisonment and section 138 should be guided by principles of proportionality, ensuring that the complainant receives the due amount rather than merely punishing the drawer of the cheque.
However, Counsel for complainant Advocate Jalal-Ud-Din prayed for stringent punishment, considering the circumstances of the case and the legislative intent behind Section 138 NI Act.
“A lenient approach would defeat the purpose of the law and encourage financial defaulters to misuse the process, leading to loss of trust in commercial transactions. The dishonor of a cheque is not merely a financial dispute but an act that shakes public confidence in negotiable instruments,” complaint submitted before the court.
Counsel for complainant stated that Section 138 NI Act aims to deter unscrupulous drawers who issue cheques without sufficient funds.
“A strict sentence will act as a deterrent against future offenders who might otherwise exploit the leniency of the law. The convict has failed to honor their legal obligation despite being given opportunities to clear the dues. The convict’s conduct showed a deliberate attempt to evade liability, warranting a stricter sentence,” he prayed before the court.
After hearing both the parities, court observed that a balance must be struck between deterrence and compensation. “While the offence does not warrant the maximum sentence, mere imposition of a fine would not serve the ends of justice given the convict’s conduct,” court observed and sentenced for simple imprisonment of one year. Additionally, the convict was directed to pay a fine of ₹12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) as compensation towards the complainant.
