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 Srinagar said to maintain credibility in business through cheques and to promote efficacy in banking, it is expedient to discourage dishonest behavior displayed by the accused.
“The circumstances of the case and the admitted position of the facts, squarely attract the ingredients of section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. The accused has not respected the concessions which were offered to him in the shape of settlement during proceedings of the case and had in fact flaunted the conditions of compromise and settlement with impunity,” the court observed.
While perusing the case file and considering the conduct of the accused the court said: “It seems that the concessions and the leniency given to the accused has proved counterproductive and the accused has taken the proceedings of the cases on ride.”
It added that accused has made compromise a ploy to borrow time and protract the proceedings of the case. “He has been playing hide and seek with the court and this can be well gathered from the fact that twice the court was constrained to initiate proceedings to secure his presence before the court,” the court observed.
While referring to various Supreme Court judgments and case laws, the court held the accused Javid Ahmad Hajam guilty in cheque bounce case. The complainant Khurshid Ahmad Dalal was represented by advocate Bashir Siddiq.
“As such, in these given circumstances, firstly the application filed by accused is dismissed and secondly he is held guilty of offences under section NI Act 1881, as such is convicted and imposed a punishment of simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs 3 lakh. In case of default in payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months,” the court said.
As per case details, Dalal had sold clothes to accused and received cheque for clearance of payments in return. However, the cheque was dishonored by the bank with remarks of “insufficient funds.”
The court had given accused opportunity to clear the debt after parties had reached at settlement outside court.