After 7 Months In Custody, Orissa HC Cuts Woman’s 9-Month Cheque-Bounce Sentence To Time Served, Citing Her Two Minor Children

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s substantive sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone, having regard to the circumstances advanced in mitigation.

The court held

The Court dismissed the revision but modified the sentence by reducing the substantive imprisonment to the period already undergone.

It also directed

The compensation order remained in force, and the petitioner was directed to undergo 30 days’ imprisonment in default of payment of compensation.

The impugned judgments were otherwise confirmed.

01Facts

The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque for ₹5,28,172, which was dishonoured.

p. 1

The trial court sentenced her to nine months’ simple imprisonment and directed her to pay ₹9,76,344 as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 117 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; default in payment attracted three months’ simple imprisonment.

pp. 1–2

The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

p. 2

In revision, the petitioner did not challenge her conviction and sought reduction of her substantive sentence to the period already undergone.

p. 3

She had served 222 days as of 30 October 2026 and approximately 229 days by the date of judgment.

pp. 3–4

The Court also noted that she was a 40-year-old woman with two minor children and that she claimed to have no means to pay the cheque amount.

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s substantive sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone, having regard to the circumstances advanced in mitigation.

pp. 3–5

ii.2. Whether the compensation order and the consequence of default in payment should remain operative following any reduction of the substantive sentence.

pp. 2, 4–5

03Law Applied

The Court considered the petitioner’s conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the compensation order under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 117 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

pp. 1–2

It applied the sentencing principle that punishment is intended to deter offending, not merely to exact retribution, and that its purpose is not to “finish the criminal” but to “finish the crime”.

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 401 Section 357

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 442

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138 Section 117

04Reasoning

The petitioner expressly confined her revision to sentence and did not seek to challenge the conviction; the Court found no error in the concurrent judgments on the merits.

p. 3, 5

In considering sentence, it weighed her nearly completed nine-month term, her status as a woman with two minor children, and the impact of continued custody on the children.

pp. 4–5

The Court also considered that reducing the substantive sentence would not extinguish the compensation liability, which remained recoverable in accordance with law.

pp. 4–5