Crl.A. 41 of 2005 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2005

S.R. SUNIL & CO. ...... APPELLANT

VERSUS

D. SRINIVASAVARADAN ...... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. A very limited prayer is made in this appeal.  

It arises from the order of the High Court.  Admittedly  

a sum of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- had been borrowed by the  

respondent from the appellant on the 5th October, 1996.  

On 18th November, 1996, the respondent gave a cheque for  

Rs.5,38,425/-  towards  the  interest  on  the  aforesaid  

amount. This cheque was deposited in the bank on the 9th  

of January, 1997  which was dishonoured on account of  

insufficient funds.  A complaint under Section 138 of  

the Negotiable Instruments Act was, accordingly, filed  

and  it  was  noticed  that  the  only  dispute  was  with  

regard to the payment of the interest as the principal  

amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- had already been paid within

Crl.A. 41 of 2005 2

time.  The Trial Magistrate, accordingly, thought it  

fit that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of  

the Court  and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- would meet the  

ends of justice.  A revision was thereafter filed by  

the appellant and the same has been dismissed.  The  

present appeal has been filed praying that the sentence  

of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine  

of Rs. 5,000/- was completely unrealistic and contrary  

to  the  law  laid  down  in  Suganthi  Suresh  Kumar v.  

Jagadeeshan (2002) 2 SCC 420.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.  

In the afore-cited case, it has been highlighted that  

the bouncing of cheque was a serious matter and not to  

be  dealt  with  lightly  by  the  Court  and  a  sentence  

commensurate with the facts and the behaviour of the  

accused must also be kept in mind.  Undoubtedly the  

principal amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- had been paid by  

the accused but the interest which he had promised to  

pay by way of the  cheque could not be realised as the  

cheque had bounced.  It is also clear that despite the  

fact that the complaint had been  filed in the year  

1996 and the matter has been pending for 15 years, he  

has not made any attempt to make the payment.  We,  

therefore, feel that a deterrent sentence is called for

Crl.A. 41 of 2005 3

in  the  light  of  the  aforesaid  circumstances.   We,  

accordingly,  direct  the  accused-respondent  herein  to  

pay a compensation and  fine of Rs. 5,38,425/-  and in  

default  of  payment  to  undergo  two  years  simple  

imprisonment.  We give time upto the end of March, 2011  

to make the payment failing which he will be taken into  

custody to serve out his sentence.   

3. The appeal stands disposed of.

...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI JANUARY 27, 2011.