The Bombay High Court recently ordered immediate release of a man facing a 17-year prison term for defaulting on compensation in multiple cheque bounce cases [Cyrus Kartak v. State of Maharashtra & Anr]. .In an order passed on May 5, Justice NJ Jamadar termed the man's continued detention as "unjust, unconscionable and unjustifiable."Hence, the judge modified the default sentence of petitioner Cyrus Noshirwan Kartak to the period of imprisonment he had already undergone, which is more than 7 years. .Kartak was convicted in May 2017 by a Metropolitan Magistrate in Andheri across 17 distinct complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The dispute stemmed from unpaid dues amounting to over ₹22.68 crore. He was sentenced to 15 months of simple imprisonment in each case, with the substantive sentences directed to run concurrently.However, the Magistrate also ordered Kartak to pay compensation, failing which he would suffer an additional 12 months of imprisonment in each of the 17 cases. The Magistrate ordered these default sentences to run consecutively, effectively condemning Kartak to serve 17 years in prison solely for non-payment.Kartak approached the High Court challenging the sentence..Justice Jamadar noted a glaring legal flaw in the Magistrate’s initial order. Under Section 65 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a default sentence cannot exceed one-fourth of the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence. Since cheque bouncing carries a maximum penalty of two years, the default sentence could not legally exceed six months.“Sentence of 12 months imprisonment is clearly in teeth of the mandate contained in Section 65 of the IPC and Section 30 of the Code, 1973. These mandates are absolute," the Court noted. .The High Court criticised the sheer length of the consecutive sentences, emphasising the guarantee of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.“A procedure which authorises the detention of the convict for default in payment of compensation for a term of eight and half years, when the substantive sentence of imprisonment is 15 months only, can only be said to be ex-facie unreasonable, excessively harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the non-compliance of the order to pay the compensation,” the Court said..It also noted that the sentence in default of payment of fine, even if undergone by Kartak, would not absolve his liability to pay the amount. “If the amount of compensation ordered to be paid to the complainant can still be recovered by resorting to the procedure envisaged by the Code (of Criminal Procedure), further detention of the Petitioner to undergo in default sentence appears wholly unsustainable,” the Court held.Since Kartak had already served over seven and a half years in Nashik Road Central Prison and ruled that any further incarceration was legally unsustainable, the Court concluded.Hence, it restricted the total default sentence to the time Kartak had already served, and directed his immediate release..Advocate Mohit Bharadwaj appeared for Kartak.Additional public prosecutor PP Malshe appeared for State. Advocates Snehankita M Munj, Shraddha Kamble and Jatin Karia (Shah) appeared for the complainant. [Read Judgment]
