Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (1.03 seconds)Section 29 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Shree Sainath Wires Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Pec Limited & Anr. on 20 December, 2016
12.Next question relates to a legal issue raised by ld. counsel for
appellant regarding the maximum default sentence which could be
awarded against the appellant. During arguments or in the written
arguments, ld. counsel did not refer to any particular legal provision.
However, reliance has been placed in the written arguments over the
case of Shree Sainath (supra). In this case, Delhi High Court
referred to section 30 of Cr.P.C., which deals with power of
Magistrate to award default punishment. Delhi High Court had
decided mixed question of two sentences running concurrently and
the respective default punishment. In that case, Delhi High Court was
dealing with the sentence passed against the petitioner in a number
of complaint cases. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 51 lacs as
compensation to the complainant. The default punishment was
passed for simple imprisonment for six months.
Section 51 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Jolly George Verghese & Anr vs The Bank Of Cochin on 4 February, 1980
In the case of Jolly George (supra), Supreme Court dealt with
provision of Section 51 read with order 21 rule 37 CPC, which relates
to arrest and detention of judgment debtor in civil prison. The
observations pointed out on behalf of appellant do not have any
application to the facts of this case, for apparent reason that the case
is to be decided on the basis of peculiar facts and law applicable
Page 3 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.21/2018
there to. In para 10 of aforesaid judgment, Supreme Court had taken
note of poor condition of persons in this country and recovery of
debts by procedure of putting one in prison in absence of proof of
minimal fairness of willful failure of judgment debtor to pay in-spite of
his sufficient means. This case law is, therefore, not applicable to
present case, wherein appellant is a convict under Section 138 NI Act
and the amount of compensation/ fine is to be imposed by the court
on the basis of cheque amount.
1