Karuppasamy pandiyan, Advocate.: At the first blush i shocked to see the judgement.but, on reading the whole judgement,i found that supreme court has substituted the one year imprisonment as fine amount of 5000 is perfectly correct since the cheque amount cum compensation has already been deposited.hence

[3/14, 07:03] Sekarreporter: 138 case CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION K.M. JOSEPH; HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.362 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.1963 OF 2019); 7th March, 2022 https://sekarreporter.com/138-case-criminal-appellate-jurisdiction-k-m-joseph-hrishikesh-roy-jj-criminal-appeal-no-362-of-2022-arising-out-of-slp-crl-no-1963-of-2019-7th-march-2022/
[3/14, 07:58] Sekarreporter: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1503195818274492418?t=cJOoy4t0zwNrsjFE_gQizA&s=08
[3/14, 07:58] Sekarreporter: Judge Suthantheram: Great. Supreme Court has taken a very lenient view in sentencing an accused for the offence under sec. 138 N. I. Act. Cheque amount 7 lakhs paid as compensation as per trial court order. One year sentence set aside instead five thousand rupees fine and additional compensation of fifteen thousand rupees only ordered. https://sekarreporter.com/judge-suthantheram-great-supreme-court-has-taken-a-very-lenient-view-in-sentencing-an-accused-for-the-offence-under-sec-138-n-i-act-cheque-amount-7-lakhs-paid-as-compensation-as-per-trial-court/
[3/14, 08:06] Sekarreporter: [3/14, 08:05] G Karuppasamy pandiyan, Advocate.: 138 case CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION K.M. JOSEPH; HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.362 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.1963 OF 2019); 7th March, 2022 https://sekarreporter.com/138-case-criminal-appellate-jurisdiction-k-m-joseph-hrishikesh-roy-jj-criminal-appeal-no-362-of-2022-arising-out-of-slp-crl-no-1963-of-2019-7th-march-2022/
[3/14, 08:06] Sekarreporter: Send audio or video regarding this order
[3/14, 08:57] Sekarreporter: [3/14, 08:31] G Karuppasamy pandiyan, Advocate.: At the first blush i shocked to see the judgement.but, on reading the whole judgement,i found that supreme court has substituted the one year imprisonment as fine amount of 5000 is perfectly correct since the cheque amount cum compensation has already been deposited.hence it can’t be simply stated the s.c shows leniency in sentence but also the judgement of supreme court is legally perfect inasmuch as the supreme court considered the object of NI Act as it is compensatory rather than punitive in nature.
[3/14, 08:56] Sekarreporter: ЁЯНБ

[3/14, 07:03] Sekarreporter: 138 case CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION K.M. JOSEPH; HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.362 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.1963 OF 2019); 7th March, 2022 https://sekarreporter.com/138-case-criminal-appellate-jurisdiction-k-m-joseph-hrishikesh-roy-jj-criminal-appeal-no-362-of-2022-arising-out-of-slp-crl-no-1963-of-2019-7th-march-2022/
[3/14, 07:58] Sekarreporter: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1503195818274492418?t=cJOoy4t0zwNrsjFE_gQizA&s=08
[3/14, 07:58] Sekarreporter: Judge Suthantheram: Great. Supreme Court has taken a very lenient view in sentencing an accused for the offence under sec. 138 N. I. Act. Cheque amount 7 lakhs paid as compensation as per trial court order. One year sentence set aside instead five thousand rupees fine and additional compensation of fifteen thousand rupees only ordered. https://sekarreporter.com/judge-suthantheram-great-supreme-court-has-taken-a-very-lenient-view-in-sentencing-an-accused-for-the-offence-under-sec-138-n-i-act-cheque-amount-7-lakhs-paid-as-compensation-as-per-trial-court/
[3/14, 08:06] Sekarreporter: [3/14, 08:05] G Karuppasamy pandiyan, Advocate.: 138 case CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION K.M. JOSEPH; HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.362 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.1963 OF 2019); 7th March, 2022 https://sekarreporter.com/138-case-criminal-appellate-jurisdiction-k-m-joseph-hrishikesh-roy-jj-criminal-appeal-no-362-of-2022-arising-out-of-slp-crl-no-1963-of-2019-7th-march-2022/
[3/14, 08:06] Sekarreporter: Send audio or video regarding this order
[3/14, 08:57] Sekarreporter: [3/14, 08:31] G Karuppasamy pandiyan, Advocate.: At the first blush i shocked to see the judgement.but, on reading the whole judgement,i found that supreme court has substituted the one year imprisonment as fine amount of 5000 is perfectly correct since the cheque amount cum compensation has already been deposited.hence it can’t be simply stated the s.c shows leniency in sentence but also the judgement of supreme court is legally perfect inasmuch as the supreme court considered the object of NI Act as it is compensatory rather than punitive in nature.
[3/14, 08:56] Sekarreporter: ЁЯНБ

[3/14, 07:03] Sekarreporter: 138 case CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION K.M. JOSEPH; HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.362 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.1963 OF 2019); 7th March, 2022 https://sekarreporter.com/138-case-criminal-appellate-jurisdiction-k-m-joseph-hrishikesh-roy-jj-criminal-appeal-no-362-of-2022-arising-out-of-slp-crl-no-1963-of-2019-7th-march-2022/
[3/14, 07:58] Sekarreporter: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1503195818274492418?t=cJOoy4t0zwNrsjFE_gQizA&s=08
[3/14, 07:58] Sekarreporter: Judge Suthantheram: Great. Supreme Court has taken a very lenient view in sentencing an accused for the offence under sec. 138 N. I. Act. Cheque amount 7 lakhs paid as compensation as per trial court order. One year sentence set aside instead five thousand rupees fine and additional compensation of fifteen thousand rupees only ordered. https://sekarreporter.com/judge-suthantheram-great-supreme-court-has-taken-a-very-lenient-view-in-sentencing-an-accused-for-the-offence-under-sec-138-n-i-act-cheque-amount-7-lakhs-paid-as-compensation-as-per-trial-court/
[3/14, 08:06] Sekarreporter: [3/14, 08:05] G Karuppasamy pandiyan, Advocate.: 138 case CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION K.M. JOSEPH; HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.362 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.1963 OF 2019); 7th March, 2022 https://sekarreporter.com/138-case-criminal-appellate-jurisdiction-k-m-joseph-hrishikesh-roy-jj-criminal-appeal-no-362-of-2022-arising-out-of-slp-crl-no-1963-of-2019-7th-march-2022/
[3/14, 08:06] Sekarreporter: Send audio or video regarding this order
[3/14, 08:57] Sekarreporter: [3/14, 08:31] G Karuppasamy pandiyan, Advocate.: At the first blush i shocked to see the judgement.but, on reading the whole judgement,i found that supreme court has substituted the one year imprisonment as fine amount of 5000 is perfectly correct since the cheque amount cum compensation has already been deposited.hence it can’t be simply stated the s.c shows leniency in sentence but also the judgement of supreme court is legally perfect inasmuch as the supreme court considered the object of NI Act as it is compensatory rather than punitive in nature.
[3/14, 08:56] Sekarreporter: ЁЯНБ

You may also like...