Last Updated on April 24, 2020 by Legalseva.net
Judgement Digest of Akhilesh Sharma v. Rishi Sharma
Through this post, we will dissect the guidelines issued by the apex court in cases of cheque bouncing by delving deep into the niche aspects of the law. We look at these issued guidelines in light of the judgement passed by the Punjab-Haryana High Court in the case of cheque bounced because of the insufficient balance in the account held in the case of Akhilesh Sharma v. Rishi Sharma on 29th May, 2019. The reader can access the full judgement by clicking on the affixed link herein below.
Also Read- Get Accused Arrested in Cheque Bounce Cases
Statement of Facts: Akhilesh Sharma v. Rishi Sharma
Date of Decision: 29th May, 2019.
CRM-3443-2019 in/andCRR No.4800 of 2017 (O&M)
Section: 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Chandigarh
Judgement of Conviction –1st December 2015/16th December2015.
Also Read- Legally Enforceable Debt in Cheque Bounce Cases
- Akhilesh Sharma u/s 138 of the NI Act.
It is of prime importance to take recourse of the guidelines that the Apex court has issued in the case of Damodar S.Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal[1]in light of the cheque bouncing cases:-
THE GUIDELINES ARE AS FOLLOW:
“(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:
(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to 2 of 4 CRM-3443-2019 in/and the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.
Also Read- False Cheque Bounce Case. Defend It!
(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.
Also Read- Cheque as a Security for Job in India
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.”
The Petitioner has filed this petition seeking the revision of the order passed on 14 December 2017 by the ld. Addl. Session Judge of Panchkula upholding the impugned conviction order against the petitioner for the commission of an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by which the petitioner was sentenced to one year of Rigorous Imprisonment. In addition to this, the petitioner was also asked to pay compensation of Rs. Three lakh and ten thousand to the complainant as it has been provided under section 138 of the said act.
Also Read- Cheque Bounce Law Amendment to Come
It was averred by the counsel for the petitioner that in light of the compromise reach at by the parties, a cheque (No. 000005) dated (29th May 2019) for the sum of Rs. Two Lakh and fifty thousand has been given to the complainant’s counsel that has eventually reached the complainant now who has identified the same. The parties have finally settled the matter now. Also, the petitioner has deposited required amount of Rs. Thirty Thousand (10 percent of the defaulted amount) to the HSLSA(Haryana State Legal Services Authority) in light of the order passed on 15th March 2019.
Also Read- Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Cases
Since the parties have at last settled the matter between them the liability for the same stands discharged allowing the present petition to be filed.Thus, the Judgement of conviction passed by the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula along with the judgment dated 14 December 2017 which was passed by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchkula, that had confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, are set aside. The present revision is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted on the basis of compromise so arrived at between the parties.
Also Read- Bail in Cheque Bounce Cases
Thus, this case has actually reaffirmed the guidelines that were issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal[2]and has actually put into reality that the accused will have to pay 10 percent or whatever be the prescribed amount keeping in mind the authority that he has chosen to approach if he wants to compound both the existing matters.
Also Read- Cheque Bounce Case Acquittal in a Criminal Case
The entire judgment can be read here.
For case specific advice, please contact top expert cheque bounce criminal lawyers of Punjab Haryana High Court Chandigarh in Tricity (Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur Baltana).
This post is written by Aniket Panchal.
More on 99888-17966.
[1]2010 (4) SC 457.
[2]2010 (4) SC 457.
