Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gautam Laxman Dongare, was the accused in a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, relating to a cheque of Rs.3,50,000. During the proceedings, the petitioner jumped bail and failed to appear on three earlier occasions, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants, which were later cancelled upon imposition of penalties. The trial court, by order dated 19.3.2009 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 5016/06, imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000 to be deposited in the Government Treasury and costs of Rs.300 to be paid to the complainant. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The petitioner's counsel argued that the penalty of Rs.10,000 was harsh and undertook that the petitioner would not default in future. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the penalty of Rs.10,000 was indeed harsh and reduced it to Rs.1,000, while confirming the cost of Rs.300 to the complainant. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the trial and complete it within six months from the date of receipt of the writ. The writ petition was partly allowed, and the rule was made absolute in those terms.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Penalty for Non-Appearance - Reduction of Penalty - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - The petitioner, accused in a cheque dishonour case, had jumped bail and failed to appear on earlier occasions, leading to non-bailable warrants and imposition of a penalty of Rs.10,000 by the trial court. The High Court found the penalty harsh and reduced it to Rs.1,000, while confirming the cost of Rs.300 to the complainant. The court directed expeditious completion of trial within six months. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the penalty of Rs.10,000 imposed on the petitioner for jumping bail and non-appearance in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint was harsh and required reduction.
Final Decision
Writ petition partly allowed. The impugned order dated 19.3.2009 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 5016/06 is modified: instead of Rs.10,000, the petitioner to deposit only Rs.1,000. Rest of the order confirmed. The trial court shall proceed with the trial and complete it expeditiously, within six months from the date of receipt of the writ.
Law Points
- Penalty for non-appearance
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- discretion of court to reduce penalty
- expeditious trial
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 63
Criminal Writ Petition No. 04 of 2010
Mr. N.D. Khamborkar for Petitioner, Mr. A.D. Sonak, APP for Respondent No.1
State of Maharashtra, Sau. Vimala Gopaldas Bhutada
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the penalty imposed for non-appearance in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought reduction of the penalty of Rs.10,000 imposed by the trial court for jumping bail and non-appearance.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a cheque of Rs.3,50,000. He jumped bail and failed to appear on three occasions, leading to non-bailable warrants and a penalty of Rs.10,000.
Previous Decisions
The trial court in Criminal Complaint Case No. 5016/06 imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000 to be deposited in Government Treasury and costs of Rs.300 to the complainant by order dated 19.3.2009.
Issues
Whether the penalty of Rs.10,000 imposed for non-appearance was harsh and should be reduced.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that the penalty of Rs.10,000 was harsh and undertook that the petitioner would not default in future. The court did not issue notice to respondent no.2 as it was not inclined to interfere with the cost of Rs.300 payable to her.
Ratio Decidendi
The penalty of Rs.10,000 imposed for non-appearance was found to be harsh and was reduced to Rs.1,000, while the cost of Rs.300 to the complainant was confirmed. The court emphasized the need for expeditious trial.
Judgment Excerpts
I find that the penalty of Rs.10,000 is harsh. The same is therefore reduced to Rs.1,000.
Writ petition is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 19.3.2009 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 5016/06 is modified and instead of Rs.10,000/, petitioner to deposit only Rs.1,000/. Rest of the order is confirmed.
Procedural History
The petitioner was accused in Criminal Complaint Case No. 5016/06 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He jumped bail and failed to appear on three occasions, leading to non-bailable warrants and a penalty of Rs.10,000 imposed by the trial court on 19.3.2009. The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 04 of 2010 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the penalty. The High Court partly allowed the petition on 11.1.2010, reducing the penalty to Rs.1,000.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138
