Partly allowed

Somanath Maharana v. Ramesh Chandra Padhy

Orissa HC16 Sept 2019CRLREV/267/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against an appellate conviction under section 138 of the NI Act, the High Court set aside the sentence of one year's simple imprisonment. The accused was directed to pay Rs.1.80 lakh compensation within four months, with a default term of six months' imprisonment. Previously deposited Rs.80,000 is to be settled before the remaining balance is paid.

What did the court decide?

Set aside sentence of one year's simple imprisonment; direct payment of Rs.1.80 lakh compensation within four months with default of six months imprisonment; adjust deposited Rs.80,000.

Somanath Maharana Vs Ramesh Chandra Padhy — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

CRLREV No.267 of 2012

¶2

16.09.2019 This revision has been directed against the judgment dated 24.02.2012 passed by the learned 2^nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2011.

¶3

By the said judgment in the appeal; the judgment dated 5.4.2010 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Berhampur in 1.C.C. No. 69 of 2008 (T.R. No. 472 of 2010) convicting the petitioner (accused) for commission of offence under section 138 of N.I. Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a sum of Rs.2.10 lakh as compensation to the opposite party (complainant) have been confirmed.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner (accused) at the beginning instead of attacking the finding of conviction of the accused for commission of offence under section 138 of N.I. Act, confines his submission to the order of sentence.

¶5

According to him, the accused having taken a hand loan of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant in order to overcome the difficulties in running his small carpentry unit by fulfilling his contractual obligation towards others; had under the circumstance been compelled to give a cheque to the complainant and that has been taken advantage of by the mention of highly inflated a sum of Rs.1.88

¶6

¶7

lakh and now it is said that the cheque had been issued by the accused for that amount towards the discharge of his debt and liability to that extent. It is his submission that in the meantime, the petitioner in obedience to the order of this Court passed on 4.5.2012 in Misc. Case No. 400 of 2012, with much difficulty has deposited a sum of Rs.80,000/- before the court below. He further submits that nonclearance of the debt and liability by the accused was because of the financial hardship that he faced in running his small business and that was under the compelling circumstances beyond the care and control of the accused. In view of the above submission is that the order of sentence of simple imprisonment of the accused for a period of one year be set aside and the quantum of compensation to be paid by the accused to the complainant be accordingly fixed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party (complainant) submits that the courts below have concurrently held that the accused had issued a cheque of Rs.1.88 lakh and therefore when there is no challenge to the finding of conviction, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the score that the cheque had not been issued for that amount towards clearance of his debit and liability to that extent is not acceptable. He further

¶9

¶10

submits that the courts below have determined the compensation amount to be paid by the accused to the complainant being alive to the relevant fact that the accused had been enjoying said loan advanced by the complainant since 16.2.2007 and the complainant has been deprived of utilizing his money for all the period as his friendly gesture has been taken undue advantage of. He however does not dispute the factum of deposit of Rs.80,000/- as per the order of this Court.

¶11

Considering the submission made and on going through the judgment of the courts below, while confirming the finding that the accused has committed the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act, this Court feels inclined to set aside the order of sentence for simple imprisonment for a period of one year as against the accused and direct him to pay compensation of Rs.1.80 lakh within a period of four months hence with the default stipulation that in the event of his failure to the same, he would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶12

Taking into account the submission as to the factum of deposit of Rs.80,000/- by the accused; it is directed that the said amount with the accrued interest be paid to the complainant on his application and observation of required formalities with the cooperation of the accused if so necessary.

¶13

¶14

The amount so paid to the complainant be excluded from the total compensation amount as awarded. It is now for the accused to pay the rest of the compensation amount within a period of four months and on failure of payment of the same within the time; the default stipulation would come into play.

¶15

The CRLREV stands disposed of.

¶16

Issue urgent certified copy as per the rules.

¶17

……………………..

¶18

Aks

Somanath Maharana v. Ramesh Chandra Padhy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somanath Maharana v. Ramesh Chandra Padhy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Girish Karna Vs State

Madkami Ulla Vs State

Pranaya Kumar@Gopal Vs Manoj Kumar Agrawal

Sunita Khosala Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Himirka Vs State of Orissa

Chaitanya Rout Vs State of Odisha