In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has overturned a conviction in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case. The ruling, issued on Tuesday, stems from a civil court’s declaration that the disputed cheque was solely intended as security.
The Court emphasized the binding nature of civil court judgments on criminal proceedings, particularly concerning sentences or damages. While acknowledging that civil and criminal jurisdictions operate independently, the Court underscored the relevance of civil court rulings for specific purposes within criminal proceedings.
The case, involving a dispute over a dishonored cheque, saw the appellant also pursuing civil action to prevent encashment of the same cheque. Despite the appellant’s conviction in criminal court, the civil court decreed in favor of the appellant, restraining the respondent from encashing the cheque.
In overturning the conviction, the Supreme Court highlighted the lack of statutory provision or legal principle mandating the binding nature of one court’s decision on another. Instead, the Court stressed the importance of evidence presented in each respective case.
The ruling, grounded in constitutional precedent, ultimately deemed the criminal proceedings unsustainable due to the civil court’s prior restraint on encashment. As a result, the conviction was quashed, and damages imposed by the trial court were directed to be returned to the appellant.
This decision underscores the intricate interplay between civil and criminal law, establishing parameters for the binding nature of court judgments in parallel proceedings.
