The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently upheld the conviction of petitioner Dinesh Negi under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) but significantly reduced his sentence. The petitioner had challenged the judgment of the Sessions Court, Solan, which dismissed his appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentencing.
The case arose from a complaint filed by Sahil Sood alleging that Dinesh Negi issued a cheque worth ₹5,20,000 as part payment of a liability, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. After the cheque bounced, the complainant issued a legal notice demanding payment within 15 days, which allegedly went unheeded, leading to the filing of a criminal complaint.
The trial court convicted Dinesh Negi and sentenced him to two months’ simple imprisonment and ordered payment of ₹5,50,000 as compensation. The Sessions Court dismissed his appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence.
The petitioner contended that the Trial Court misread evidence, especially regarding certain documents that were neither mentioned in the legal notice nor the complaint. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the liability was actually towards the complainant’s father, not the complainant himself.
However, the High Court noted that the accused admitted his signatures on the cheque and failed to rebut the presumption of liability under Section 138 NI Act. The Court further observed that the Trial and Appellate Courts’ findings were not perverse and therefore did not warrant interference on the question of conviction.
While upholding the conviction, the High Court took a lenient view on sentencing. It acknowledged that the petitioner had deposited the entire compensation amount, and in the absence of any appeal for enhancement, the Court deemed the original sentence excessive.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2021), the Court emphasized that Section 138 NI Act proceedings are hybrid in nature, balancing civil liability and criminal consequences, and the objective is to compensate the aggrieved party rather than impose harsh punishment.
Consequently, the High Court modified the sentence from two months’ simple imprisonment to imprisonment “till the rising of the Court,” thus significantly reducing the period of incarceration while ensuring that justice is served.
Picture Source :
