Man sentenced to 6 months jail in cheque bounce case

MDT/PTI

The Court said that offences under Section 138 of the NI Act are on high rise" and have massive effect on the economic condition of the victims
New Delhi: A man has been sentenced to six months in jail in a cheque bounce case with the court saying that such offences are on "rise" and have "massive effect" on the economic condition of the victims, reports PTI.

The court also imposed a fine of Rs1,000 on convict Kundan, a Delhi resident as he failed to pay the complete amount to his debtor, despite promising to pay him the same after reaching a settlement with him.

The court rejected the convict's plea for leniency and for his release on probation.


"It is necessary to be mentioned here that the offences under section 138 (relating to dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds) of the Negotiable Instruments Act are on high rise and in order to keep the spirit of the legislation, the accused cannot be released on probation as these offences have massive effect on the economic condition of the persons," Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja said.

The court noted that the dispute was settled between Kundan and complainant Fateh Chand from whom he had taken Rs72,000 loan.

It added that they had agreed to settle the case for a final payment of Rs72,000 but Kundan was able to pay only Rs33,000.

"The accused has settled the matter with the complainant during the proceedings and made part payment towards the same but due to the lack of arrangement of the funds he could not make the remaining payment.

"Keeping in view, the points put forth by both parties, this court deems fit that accused be sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs1,000 and in default the accused shall under go one month simple imprisonment in addition to six months simple imprisonment," the court said.

Delhi-resident Fateh Chand had moved the court under the Negotiable Instruments Act contending that he had given a friendly loan to Kundan in 2006 but the cheque issued by the accused for paying the amount back was rejected by the bank due to "insufficient funds".