Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.38 seconds)
Pradeep H U vs Roshan Paramashivaiah on 15 March, 2024 cites

M/S Meters And Instruments Private ... vs Kanchan Mehta on 5 October, 2017

25. Point No.2:- For the reasons discussed in the point No.1, the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court also dealt in the decision reported in (2018) 1 SCC 560, M/s. Meters and Instrument Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Kanchana Mehta., wherein, It is held that "the object of provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged, but is not debarred at the later stage subject to appropriate compensation has may be found acceptable to the parties or the court". By considering the decision, it could be said that, the time when the transaction has taken place and the primary object of the provision being kept in mind, I am of the considered view that rather imposing punitive sentence, if sentence of fine is imposed with a direction to compensate the complainant for its monetary loss by awarding compensation U/s.357 of Cr.P.C., it would meet the ends of justice. By considering these aspects, I am 29 C.C.No.23021/2018 of the considered view that, it would be just and proper to impose fine of Rs.17,05,000/-. Out of the compensation of Rs.17,05,000/-, an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- shall be awarded to the complainant U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following :
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 753 - A K Goel - Full Document
1   2 Next