A bounced check can actually land you in prison!

PANJIM: A bounced check can actually land you in prison! In an interesting case, the High Court has actually upheld the decision of the lower courts and sent the defaulter, Sunil Chandrashekar Jantli, to one-month simple imprisonment.

Jantli had filed a revision petition against two concurrent findings of the lower Courts holding him guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the single bench of Justice NA Britto. The Courts had sentenced Jantli to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days and also directed him to pay a sum of Rs 5 lakh by way of compensation.

However, the High Court dismissed the revision application as without any merits and asked the accused to "surrender forthwith" as there is no stay on the judgment of the Additional Sessions judge. On December 21, 2006, the Additional Sessions judge had stated that the accused was required to surrender within a period of four weeks for the purpose of undergoing the sentence.


Jantli got into trouble when Tome Hiltor De Oliveira, one of the four partners in M/s. Goa Mining Corporation filed a complaint against him. In his complaint he alleged that the accused had taken an advance sum of Rs 4 lakh from his firm to supply of ore. But as he couldn't supply the ore, as towards the repayment of the advanced sum, he gave the firm -- M/s. Goa Mining Corporation -- a cheque of Rs 4 lakh on November 26, 2004 on ICICI Bank, Panjim branch.

However, when the cheque was presented for collection it was returned dishonored for insufficiency of funds, alleged the complainant Oliveira. Later, when statutory notice was addressed to the accused on January 14, 2005 it was also returned unclaimed and therefore the complainant Oliveira prosecuted the accused under Section 138 of the said of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Before the High Court, Jantli's defense was twofold. First, the said cheque was obtained from him by practicing deceit and fraud, and the second, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 he stated that the said cheque was issued as security towards some mutual understanding for future business, even without specifying what was the nature of the said future business.

However, the Court observed that the accused by taking the said two pleas landed neither here nor there in that the accused failed to translate the said pleas into evidence and upheld the lower Courts decision.