NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.    15         OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2423 of 2010]

Raju @ Sheikha Mohamed Sharif      … Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr.      … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

AFTAB ALAM, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant stands convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable  

Instruments Act (hereinafter, the Act). He is sentenced to imprisonment∗ for  

six months and payment of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with the direction  

 Nature of imprisonment not specified by any of the courts.

that  in default  of  payment  he would undergo imprisonment  for  a further  

period of one month.  

3. The  appellant  gave  a  cheque  dated  November  5,  2003  for  

Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant-respondent in repayment of a loan of the  

same amount earlier taken by him. The cheque on presentation before the  

bank was returned with the endorsement, “account closed.” The respondent  

gave a notice to the appellant asking for payment of the cheque amount but  

the  appellant  did  not  make  the  payment.  Hence,  the  respondent  filed  a  

complaint against the appellant under section 138 of the Act, giving rise to  

case  bearing  CC  No.245/SS/2004.  In  the  complaint  case,  the  Special  

Metropolitan Magistrate  and Judge of the Small  Causes Court  found and  

held that the complainant was able to establish the appellant’s guilt and by  

judgment and order dated October 6, 2005, convicted him under section 138  

of the Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months. The  

court also directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- under  

section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default of payment  

of compensation, to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. The  

court  further  directed that  on realization  of  the  amount of  compensation,  

Rs.4,00,000/- would be paid to the complainant and the remaining amount  

2

would be credited to the State for the “loss and expenses incurred by both  

the parties”.

4. Against the judgment of the trial court, the appellant preferred appeal  

(Crl.  A.  No.698  of  2005).  The  appeal  was  dismissed  without  any  

modification in conviction or sentence by judgment and order dated June 29,  

2007.  The  appellant,  then,  moved  the  High  Court  in  Criminal  Revision  

Application No.317 of  2007.  The High Court  by  its  judgment  and order  

dated December 9, 2009 sustained the appellant’s conviction. It, however,  

noted that during the pendency of the criminal revision, the appellant had  

deposited Rs.4,00,000/- in court which was withdrawn by the complainant  

by the permission of the court. The court further observed that in the facts of  

the case there was no specific loss caused to the State and, therefore, there  

was  no  justification  for  payment  of  the  large  sum  of  Rs.4,00,000/-  as  

compensation  to  the  State.  It,  accordingly,  reduced  the  amount  of  

compensation from Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/-.

5. The appellant has now brought this matter to this Court. At the SLP  

stage  notice  was  issued  limited  to  the  question  of  sentence.  From  the  

materials on record it appears that before the complainant gave the loan to  

the  appellant  (for  the  repayment  of  which  the  dishonoured  cheque  was  

issued  by  the  appellant)  there  were  business  transactions  between  the  

3

appellant and the complainant’s sister that had gone sour. As a matter of fact  

it was the defence of the appellant that having regard to the past events there  

was  no  question  that  the  complainant  would  give  him any loan  and  the  

whole  case  that  the  cheque  was  given  in  repayment  of  the  loan  was  

completely false. We are referring to the circumstance not to reconsider the  

appellant’s conviction which we confirm but for the limited purpose of the  

due sentence. The appellant has faced the rigours of a criminal prosecution  

for the past six years and is said to have served out the substantive sentence  

of imprisonment for 39 days.

6. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that  

the ends of justice would be satisfied by reducing the substantive sentence of  

the appellant to the period already undergone by him. This would, however,  

be subject to the condition of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as additional amount  

of compensation to the complainant.  

7. We, accordingly, direct that the appellant’s sentence of imprisonment  

be reduced to the period already undergone by him provided he deposits a  

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the trial court within 8 weeks from today failing  

which, he would be taken in custody to serve out the remaining period of  

4

sentence given to him by the High Court. If the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is  

deposited as directed the entire amount would be paid to the complainant.

8. The appeal is dismissed subject to the modification in sentence.   

.……….……...................J.                                                     (AFTAB ALAM)          

………..……...................J.                                                   (R.M. LODHA)         

New Delhi January 5, 2011.

5