(AIR 2017 SC 4594)
Summary of Judgment
Nature of offence under Section 138 primarily related to civil wrong and it was specifically made compoundable by 2002 amendment.
The object of the provision was described as both punitive as well as compensatory. The intention of the provision was to ensure that complainant received the amount of cheque by way of compensation. Though proceedings under section 138 could not be treated as civil suits for recovery, the scheme of the provision, providing for punishment with imprisonment or with fine which could extend to twice the amount of the cheque or to the both, made the intention of law clear. The complainant could be given not only the cheque amount but double the amount so as to cover interest and costs.
The accused, who wants to contest the case, must be required to disclose specific defence for such contest. It is open to the Court to ask specific questions to the accused at that stage. In case the trial is to proceed, it will be open to the Court to consider the provisions of plea bargaining. Subject to this, the trial can be on day-to-day basis and endeavour must be to conclude it within six months. The guilty must be punished at the earliest as per law and the one who obeys the law need not be held up in proceedings for long unnecessarily.
The offence was also described as ‘regulatory offence’. The burden of proof was on the accused in view of presumption under Section 139 and the standard of proof was of “preponderance of probabilities”.