Can A Person Be Jailed For More Than 6 Months For Non-Payment Of Fine In Cheque Bounce Case? Karnataka High Court Explains

The Karnataka High Court has held that the default jail term for non-payment of fine in cheque bounce cases cannot exceed one-fourth of the maximum substantive sentence prescribed for the offence, which means that it can't exceed six months in each case where the maximum punishment is two years. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 206]Relying on Section 65 of IPC [Section 8(3) BNS- Limit to imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when imprisonment and fine awardable], the single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna opined that Section 138 of the NI Act prescribes a maximum imprisonment of two years, and therefore, the default sentence cannot exceed six months.“Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act prescribes a maximum punishment of two years' imprisonment, or fine extending to twice the cheque amount, or both. Consequently, when Section 65 of the IPC and Section 8(3) of the BNS are read in conjunction with the penal framework of Section 138, the outer limit of imprisonment in default of payment of fine would be six months in each case". For context, Section 65IPC/Section 8(3) BNS prescribes that the term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned in default of payment of a fine shall not exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for the offence, if the offence be punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.It further said:"…the sentence in default cannot travel beyond one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which the Magistrate is otherwise competent to impose for the substantive offence.…The statutory architecture unmistakably reveals a legislative anxiety against excessive incarceration merely on account of inability or unwillingness to discharge a pecuniary liability. Imprisonment in default of payment of fine is not an additional punishment for the offence; it is a coercive measure to secure compliance. It can never be employed as a disguised instrument to enhance substantive punishment". For context, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act prescribes a maximum punishment of two years' imprisonment, or fine extending to twice the cheque amount, or both.The court, relying on various precedents, also added that where multiple cheque bounce cases arise from a single transaction, the cumulative default sentences should be proportionately reduced, and the convict cannot be made to suffer consecutive default sentences that result in grossly disproportionate incarceration. The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs 10 crores from a company in 2017. In three separate cheque bounce cases arising from a single transaction involving the petitioner and the lender company, involving cheque amounts of Rs 50 lakhs, Rs 3.5 crores and Rs 5 crores, the petitioner was sentenced to 3 months of default sentence in each. In September, 2025, the Magistrate court asked the petitioner to undergo the default sentences for non-payment of fine by issuing conviction warrants. The petitioner was serving his sentence at Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara at the time of filing the writ petition.The court also observed that continued incarceration of a convict merely for inability to satisfy a pecuniary liability, especially when the default sentence becomes disproportionately harsh, violates the constitutional guarantees under Article 21.“…If the petitioner truly possessed the means to pay the fine, it is inconceivable that he would choose to languish in jail. Prolonged incarceration in such circumstances serves no legitimate purpose; it brings no real benefit to the complainant – save for a perverse and punitive sense of satisfaction, which the law does not countenance.”The court reasoned that the accused had already been subjected to more than 6 months of imprisonment in jail for default, and any prolonged detention would be 'excessive, unconscionable and violative' of the spirit of Section 65 of the IPC [S. 8(3) of BNS]' as laid down in Cyrus Noshirwan Kartak v. State Of Maharashtra [2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 299].“…The legislative intent underlying Section 65 IPC is luminous: imprisonment in default is not to assume the character of a substantive punishment. It is a coercive, procedural tool to enforce the monetary order of the Court,” the court said.While allowing the criminal petition, Justice Nagaprasanna passed the following order:“…The aggregate default sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner is hereby proportionately staggered, moderated and consequently equalized to the of imprisonment already undergone by him in default of payment of fine in C.C.No.15234/2021, C.C.No.15235/2021 and C.C.No.15236/2021”.Accordingly, the petitioner-borrower should be released from detention within 4 days of the receipt of the order, the court ordered.“…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 60 statutory right of the complainant or the State to pursue recovery proceedings in...

Can A Person Be Jailed For More Than 6 Months For Non-Payment Of Fine In Cheque Bounce Case? Karnataka High Court Explains

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

Can A Person Be Jailed For More Than 6 Months For Non-Payment Of Fine In Cheque Bounce Case? Karnataka High Court Explains

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers