Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1031/2024 M/s Shiv Durga Enterprises Vs. Jayshowal Enterprises
CNR No: DLCT020020172024
22.09.2026
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Present: None for complainant.
None for convict.
1. Vide separate judgment dated 07.09.2026, Nitai Jayshowal,
proprietor of Jayshowal Enterprises, has been convicted for
commission of offence u/s 138 of NI Act, 1881 for dishonour of
cheque amounting to ₹ 11,98,416/-.
2. Ld. Counsel for complainant submitted that matter is more than
two years old and the complainant has suffered great hardships due to
financial constraint that the convict subjected him to. It was further
submitted that convict is habitual offender. It was prayed that no
leniency be shown to the convict, maximum punishment be awarded
to him and double compensation be granted to the complainant.
3. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for convict submitted that convict is not
having any criminal antecedents. It was also submitted that the convict
was ready to settle the matter and also offered good amount in
mediation centre but the matter could not be settled. It was further
submitted that the scheme of the NI Act is compensatory in nature and
not punitive and therefore lenient view may be taken with respect to
sentence of imprisonment.
4. In ‘
R. Vijayan v. Baby & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 260’, Hon’ble
Supreme Court while discussing the quantum of compensation in
cases under NI Act, held:
“18. … As the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Act strongly
lean towards grant of reimbursement of the loss by way of
compensation, the courts should, unless there are special
circumstances, in all cases of Conviction, uniformly exercise
the power to levy fine upto twice the cheque amount (keeping
in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at
1/2
-- 1 of 2 --
9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss) and direct
payment of such amount as compensation. …”
5. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, especially the
fact that the matter pertains to the year 2024; cheque bouncing cases
are on a rise and releasing the convict on probation would not have
deterrent effect in the society, this court is not inclined to grant the
benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Convict is sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for period of five months.
6. Further, this court deems it fit not to impose fine upon the
convict but the convict is held liable to pay ₹ 11,98,416/- that is, the
amount of cheque in question, along with simple interest at the rate of
9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 20.01.2024
till date of judgment i.e. 07.09.2026 as compensation to the
complainant, in terms of provision u/s 395(3) BNSS, within 30 days
from the date of this order. In default of payment of the compensation,
the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. If the
compensation is not paid in time the same shall be recoverable as per
provision of Section 471 BNSS r/w 461 BNSS, irrespective of the
default simple imprisonment.
7. It is clarified that in case the compensation after computation
with interest comes out to be more than double the amount of cheque
in question then, double the cheque amount only shall be paid as
compensation.
8. The convict is at liberty to prefer an appeal to the Court of
Session against the judgment and sentence passed by this Court.
Copy of order be given dasti to the convict.
(Navdeep Gupta)
JMFC (NI Act-02)/Central
THC/Delhi/22.09.2026
2/2
-- 2 of 2 --