Criminal Appeal No. 963 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6369 of 2007) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 964-966 of 2010 Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6370-6372 of 2007. Case: Damodar S. Prabhu Vs Sayed Babalal H.. Supreme Court (India)
Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 963 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6369 of 2007) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 964-966 of 2010 Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6370-6372 of 2007 |
Counsel | For Appellant: G.E. Vahanvati, SGI, (A.C.), Arun R. Pedneker and V.N. Raghupathy, Advs. and For Respondents: Sunil Kumar Verma, Adv. |
Judges | K.G. Balakrishnan, P. Sathasivam, and J.M. Panchal, JJ. |
Issue | Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) - Sections 138, 147, 38 |
Citation | AIR 2010 SC 1907, 169 (2010) DLT 1 (SC), 2010 (2) KLT 587 (SC), RLW 2010 (2) SC 1599, 2010 (4) SCALE 568, (2010) 5 SCC 663, 2010 (3) WLN 9, 2010 CriLJ 2860 |
Judgement Date | Monday May 03, 2010 |
Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Order:
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals are in respect of litigation involving the offence enumerated by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Hereinafter `Act']. It is not necessary for us to delve into the facts leading up to the institution of proceedings before this Court since the appellant and the respondent have arrived at a settlement and prayed for the compounding of the offence as contemplated by Section 147 of the Act. It would suffice to say that the parties were involved in commercial transactions and that disputes had arisen on account of the dishonour of five cheques issued by the appellant. Thereafter, the parties went through the several stages of litigation before their dispute reached this Court by way of special leave petitions. With regard to the impugned judgments delivered by the High Court of Bombay at Goa, the appellant has prayed for the setting aside of his conviction in these matters by relying on the consent terms that have been arrived at between the parties. The respondent has not opposed this plea and, therefore, we allow the compounding of the offence and set aside the appellant's conviction in each of the impugned judgments.
3. However, there are some larger issues which can be appropriately addressed in the context of the present case. It may be recalled that Chapter XVII comprising sections 138 to 142 was inserted into the Act by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988). The object of bringing Section 138 into the statute was to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. It was to enhance the acceptability of cheques in settlement of liabilities by making the drawer liable for penalties in case of bouncing of cheques due to insufficient arrangements made by the drawer, with adequate safeguards to prevent harassment of honest drawers. If the cheque is dishonoured for insufficiency of funds in the drawer's account or if it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account, the drawer is to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. It may be noted that when the offence was inserted in the statute in 1988, it carried the provision for imprisonment up to one year, which was revised to two years following the amendment to the Act in 2002. It is quite evident that the legislative intent was to provide a strong criminal remedy in order to deter the worryingly high incidence of dishonour of cheques. While the possibility of imprisonment up to two years provides a remedy of a punitive nature, the provision for imposing a `fine which may extent to twice the amount of the cheque' serves a compensatory purpose. What must be remembered is that the dishonour of a cheque can be best described as a regulatory offence that has been created to serve the public interest in ensuring the reliability of these instruments. The impact of this offence is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions.
4. Invariably, the provision of a strong criminal remedy has encouraged the institution of a large number of cases that are relatable to the offence contemplated by Section 138 of the Act. So much so, that at present a disproportionately large number of cases involving the dishonour of cheques is choking our criminal justice system, especially at the level of Magistrates' Courts. As per the 213th Report of the Law Commission of India, more than 38 lakh cheque bouncing cases were pending before various courts in the country as of October 2008. This is putting an unprecedented strain on our judicial system.
5. Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, Solicitor General (now Attorney- General for India) had appeared as amicus curiae in the present matter and referred to the facts herein as an illustration of how parties involved in cheque bounce cases usually seek the compounding of the offence at a very late stage. The interests of justice would indeed be better served if parties resorted to compounding as a method to resolve their disputes at an early stage instead of engaging in protracted litigation before several forums, thereby causing undue delay, expenditure and strain on part of the judicial system. This is clearly a situation that is causing some concern, since Section 147 of the Act does not prescribe as to what stage is appropriate for compounding the offence and whether the same can be done at the instance of the complainant or with the leave of the court. The learned Attorney General stressed on the importance of using compounding as an expedient method to hasten the disposal of cases. In this regard, the learned Attorney General has proposed that this Court should frame some guidelines to disincentivise litigants from seeking the compounding of the offence at an unduly late stage of litigation. In other words, judicial directions have been sought to nudge litigants in cheque bounce cases to opt for compounding during the early stages of litigation, thereby bringing down the arrears.
6. Before examining the guidelines proposed by the learned...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
CRL.REF.--1/2016. Case: DAYAWATI Vs. YOGESH KUMAR GOSAIN. High Court of Delhi (India)
...and that it provides a single forum to enforce a civil and criminal remedy. 66. In this regard, the observations of the Supreme Court in (2010) 5 SCC 663, Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H also shed valuable light, relevant extract whereof is as below “17. In a recently published comment......
-
Writ Petition No. 824 of 2013. Case: Akbaruddin Owaisi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
...S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.,26). 23 (1980) 3 SCC 152: (1980 Cri LJ 227) 24 (2010) 14 SCC 444: (2011 Cri LJ 971) 25 2013 Cri LJ 2313 26 (2010) 5 SCC 663: (2010 Cri LJ CASES WHERE THE RULE, AGAINST REGISTRATION OF TWO FIRs FOR THE SAME OCCURRENCE/INCIDENT, WILL NOT APPLY: 21. The submission......
-
Writ Petition No. 824 of 2013. Case: Akbaruddin Owaisi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
...to the same transaction, must be controlled as it causes tremendous harassment and prejudice. (Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663). CASES WHERE THE RULE, AGAINST REGISTRATION OF TWO FIRs FOR THE SAME OCCURRENCE/INCIDENT, WILL NOT The submission of Sri S. Sriram, Learned......
-
Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247 and 248 of 2014. Case: Shanthi Fortune (India) Limited Vs Mukka Sea Foods Industries. High Court of Karnataka (India)
...the above., it is necessary to take note of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663, While addressing a situation where complaints alleging offences punishable under Section 138 NI Act, were being filed in multiple jurisdictions, s......
-
CRL.REF.--1/2016. Case: DAYAWATI Vs. YOGESH KUMAR GOSAIN. High Court of Delhi (India)
...and that it provides a single forum to enforce a civil and criminal remedy. 66. In this regard, the observations of the Supreme Court in (2010) 5 SCC 663, Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H also shed valuable light, relevant extract whereof is as below “17. In a recently published comment......
-
Writ Petition No. 824 of 2013. Case: Akbaruddin Owaisi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
...S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.,26). 23 (1980) 3 SCC 152: (1980 Cri LJ 227) 24 (2010) 14 SCC 444: (2011 Cri LJ 971) 25 2013 Cri LJ 2313 26 (2010) 5 SCC 663: (2010 Cri LJ CASES WHERE THE RULE, AGAINST REGISTRATION OF TWO FIRs FOR THE SAME OCCURRENCE/INCIDENT, WILL NOT APPLY: 21. The submission......
-
Writ Petition No. 824 of 2013. Case: Akbaruddin Owaisi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
...to the same transaction, must be controlled as it causes tremendous harassment and prejudice. (Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663). CASES WHERE THE RULE, AGAINST REGISTRATION OF TWO FIRs FOR THE SAME OCCURRENCE/INCIDENT, WILL NOT The submission of Sri S. Sriram, Learned......
-
Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247 and 248 of 2014. Case: Shanthi Fortune (India) Limited Vs Mukka Sea Foods Industries. High Court of Karnataka (India)
...the above., it is necessary to take note of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663, While addressing a situation where complaints alleging offences punishable under Section 138 NI Act, were being filed in multiple jurisdictions, s......
-
The Controversy Gets Murkier - Can The Accused Seek Compounding Of An Offence For Cheque Dishonour Without The Consent Of The Complainant?
...contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable." 6 (2010) 5 SCC 663. 7 2011 SCC Online Bom 1004. 8 (2012) 3 SCC 255. 9 Section 320(9) of the CrPC reads: - ".... No offence shall be compounded except as provided by......
-
A 'Cheque Bounce' Complaint Filed, Based On A Second Statutory Notice Issued After Re-Presentation Of Cheques, Is Maintainable
...3 SCC 658; C. C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed reported in (2007) 6 SCC 555 and Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663.) Having said that, we must add that one of the salutary principles of interpretation of statues is to adopt an interpretation which promotes......
-
Section 138 Of The NI Act: Balancing The Civil & Criminal Intents
...should ensure strict compliance with the guidelines and principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the pronouncement reported at (2010) 5 SCC 663, Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H and so far as the settlement at the later stage is concerned in (2014) 10 SCC 690 Madhya Pradesh State Le......