A local court here awarded two years imprisonment to a man in a cheque bounce case and directed him to pay Rs 3 lakh compensation to the complainant.
After hearing both parties, the court of sub judge Srinagarsaid to maintain credibility in business through cheques and to promoteefficacy in banking, it is expedient to discourage dishonest behavior displayedby the accused.
“The circumstances of the case and the admitted position ofthe facts, squarely attract the ingredients of section 138 NegotiableInstrument Act 1881. The accused has not respected the concessions which wereoffered to him in the shape of settlement during proceedings of the case andhad in fact flaunted the conditions of compromise and settlement withimpunity,” the court observed.
While perusing the case file and considering the conduct ofthe accused the court said: “It seems that the concessions and the leniencygiven to the accused has proved counterproductive and the accused has taken theproceedings of the cases on ride.”
It added that accused has made compromise a ploy to borrowtime and protract the proceedings of the case. “He has been playing hide andseek with the court and this can be well gathered from the fact that twice thecourt was constrained to initiate proceedings to secure his presence before thecourt,” the court observed.
While referring to various Supreme Court judgments and caselaws, the court held the accused Javid Ahmad Hajam guilty in cheque bouncecase. The complainant Khurshid Ahmad Dalal was represented by advocate BashirSiddiq.
“As such, in these given circumstances, firstly theapplication filed by accused is dismissed and secondly he is held guilty ofoffences under section NI Act 1881, as such is convicted and imposed apunishment of simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs 3 lakh. Incase of default in payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for aperiod of six months,” the court said.
As per case details, Dalal had sold clothes to accused andreceived cheque for clearance of payments in return. However, the cheque wasdishonored by the bank with remarks of “insufficient funds.”
The court had given accused opportunity to clear the debtafter parties had reached at settlement outside court.