A 65-year-old man has been sentenced to two years imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 7.2 lakh in a cheque bounce case by a Delhi court which said such matters are unduly increasing pendency leading to "docket explosion and extraction of judicial time".
The court said that such dishonest conduct of issuance of cheques leads not only to docket explosion, which needs to be tackled with a heavy hand, but also harasses the complainant whose money is withheld.
Metropolitan Magistrate Ashok Kumar noted that the case, pending since 2001, was more than 14-year-old and the accused, proprietor of a firm, takes major share of the blame as trial was unduly delayed.
Also Read
"... Keeping in view the fact that the cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are unduly clogging the dockets of the courts leading to docket explosion and extraction of judicial time which could have been given to other cases and on the other hand due to the dishonest issuance of cheque, the same is eroding of credibility of such instruments, this court does not deem it necessary to extend the benefit of Probation of Offender Act to the accused," the court said.
It added that "such dishonest conduct leads not only to docket explosion which needs to be tackled with a heavy hand but also has resulted in harassment of the complainant holding up the valuable money belonging to him."
The court's judgement came while holding accused Shankar Narayan, proprietor of Star Enterprises in Connaught Place here, guilty of issuing a cheque which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
A complaint was filed in the court by complainant Delphi Automotive Systems Limited alleging that the accused had issued the cheque to it of Rs 7.2 lakh on July 20, 2000.
When the complainant presented the cheque for encashment, it was dishonoured and a legal notice was sent to Narayan.
While awarding the punishment to Narayan, the court said since the complainant has suffered lot of harassment and had to launch and sustain prosecution for a long period by denial of legally recoverable amount due to him, the fine be paid to him as recompense.
Narayan sought leniency saying that he was aged and was working as a property dealer and has to support his family.
The court, however, refused to take a lenient view and said "he was liable to maximum sentence as prescribed under the law".
It held the man responsible for delaying the trial as he took several adjournments for one reason or other.
