The Karnataka High Court has ordered the release of a man convicted in three cheque dishonour cases, holding that keeping him in prison any longer for failing to pay court-imposed fines would be unjust and disproportionate. Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that imprisonment for non-payment of a fine is meant to secure compliance with a monetary order and should not become an excessive punishment.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had been convicted in three separate prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with cheque dishonour cases. Along with the substantive sentence, courts had imposed fines and directed that he undergo additional imprisonment if those amounts were not paid.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the cumulative effect of the default sentences had become excessively harsh in view of his financial condition and inability to pay the fine amounts. The court examined statutory provisions governing imprisonment in default of payment of fine and reviewed several decisions of the Supreme Court and different High Courts on the issue.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the court noted that the law places limits on imprisonment imposed for non-payment of fines. Referring to Section 65 of the Indian Penal Code and corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the court observed that such imprisonment is intended as a coercive mechanism and not as an additional punishment.
“The legislative intent underlying the provision is luminous: imprisonment in default is not to assume the character of a disproportionately oppressive penalty,” the bench observed while discussing the statutory framework.
Justice Nagaprasanna also referred to recent decisions from the Telangana, Delhi and Bombay High Courts, which emphasized that prolonged incarceration solely because a person cannot pay compensation or fines may lead to disproportionate consequences and raise concerns relating to personal liberty.
The court further clarified that reducing a default sentence does not wipe out the liability to pay the amount. Recovery proceedings available under law can still continue against the individual.
Decision
Allowing the criminal petition, the High Court held that the petitioner had already undergone sufficient imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The court proportionately moderated and equalised the aggregate default sentence to the period already undergone by him in the three cheque dishonour cases.
The bench directed that the petitioner be released from custody forthwith, subject to verification that he was not required in any other case. At the same time, the court made it clear that proceedings for attachment, recovery and realization of the fine amounts would continue independently in accordance with law.
