BENGALURU: The High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday held that the statutory ceiling under Section 65 of IPC (now Section 8 of BNS) unequivocally mandates that imprisonment in default of the payment of fine in cheque bounce cases cannot exceed one-fourth of the maximum substantive sentence of two years prescribed for the offence. Thus, in prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the maximum substantive punishment extends to two years, the default sentence cannot travel beyond six months, the court added.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order while directing the prison authorities to release the petitioner, a resident of Bellandur in the city. “In the light of the petitioner’s demonstrated financial incapacity to satisfy the enormous fine amounts imposed upon him, the acute hardship and destitution suffered by his family during his prolonged incarceration and the principles so luminously enunciated by the Apex Court and the high courts of Delhi and Bombay in the quoted judgments in this order, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a compelling case for grant of relief,” the court observed.
The petitioner has suffered convictions in three separate prosecutions and, upon failure to satisfy the fine amounts imposed therein, has been directed by the trial court to undergo default imprisonment of three months in each case.
The petitioner, who has already suffered incarceration for a cumulative period of six months in two of the cases, approached the high court, seeking enlargement from judicial custody, contending that the continued incarceration transgresses the statutory limitations engrafted under criminal jurisprudence.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the cumulative operation of these sentences amounts to unduly, harsh and excessive punishment, offending the spirit and mandate of Section 65 of the IPC and Section 8(3) of the BNS.
The petitioner was sentenced by the trial court in three cheque bounce cases of a single transaction as he failed to pay the money he obtained in 2017 from a firm, imposing a condition that he was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for defaulting the payment of fine.
As he failed to pay the fine amount, by way of separate orders passed on May 29, 2025, in all three cases, he was directed to undergo a default sentence of three months simple imprisonment for each offence. Aggrieved, he filed the petition for release from prison.
Allowing the petition, the court clarified the present adjudication concerns only the legality and proportionality of continued incarceration in default of payment of fine and shall not eclipse or dilute the statutory right of the complainant or the state to pursue recovery proceedings in accordance with law.