Filmmaker Rajkumar Santoshi gets 2 years jail in cheque return case; asked to pay Rs 2 cr to complainant

According to the prosecution, a person named Sampatbhai had collected Rs 1.1 crore in cash from Lal on behalf of Santoshi. In return, Santoshi had given 11 cheques, each worth Rs 10 lakh to Lal, for repayment of the loan.

However, when Lal, who is into shipping business, deposited the cheques in a bank to encash them, the bank dishonoured them in March 2017, citing difference in signature of the drawer, Santoshi. After this, Lal served a notice on Santoshi but the latter didn’t repay the loan within stipulated time. Eventually, Lal filed a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Jamnagar court in May, 2017.

On Saturday, the court held Santoshi guilty under Section 138 of the Act. Besides sentencing him to two years of simple imprisonment in each of the 11 cases, the court also ordered him to pay Rs 20 lakh to Lal within 30 days in each case, else he will have to undergo six more months of simple imprisonment in each case. The court delivered separate orders in all the cases.

Two years of imprisonment and double the amount in dispute is the maximum punishment that can be awarded under Section 138 of the Act that deals with dishonour of cheque due to insufficency of fund, among others.

Magistrate Gadhavi observed in his judgement, “After having heard both sides, I have gone though many policies regarding awarding sentence in cases filed under (Section 138 of the Act)… Maximum punishment, which may be inflicted on conviction of offence (under the section) is two years or with fine, which may extend to twice the amount of cheque or both.”

“As cheque in question contains amount of Rs 10,00,000, and… the accused has not repaid that amount, it is also noted the money was (lent) in 2017 and long period has already passed… according to this court, as to sub serve, object of the enactment, awarding of simple imprisonment of two years, which is maximum, is right and correct sentence. Too lenient punishment may make mockery of justice,” he added.

Lal’s advocate Piyush Bhojani told The Indian Express that the court found no merit in Satoshi’s defence. “He initially argued that he had issued the cheque as a surety only and not to repay the said debt and that the complainant was misusing that cheque. However, the defence could not produce any material evidence to this effect. Later on, the defence claimed that the cheque in question had not been issued by Santoshi,” Bhojani said.

“We also drew the court’s attention to the fact that Santoshi was convicted by a court in Rajkot some time ago in a similar complaint filed by a person named Anil Jethani,” he added.

The court, however, had granted Santoshi exemption from remaining present in court personally and hence, the judgement was pronounced in his absence.

While Santoshi could not be reached for a comment, his advocate, Binesh Patel told The Indian Express that they will appeal against the order.

“First of all, the court has stayed its judgement for 30 days, granted Santoshi bail after we sought time to appeal against the judgement at a higher forum… The prosecution didn’t produce any documentary evidence to prove that Santoshi had taken Rs 10-lakh loan from the complainant. In fact, the prosecution itself admits that a third party had collected the cash from the complainant and given the disputed cheque to the complainant. The magisterial court overlooked these facts and ruled against us. Therefore, we shall appeal against this judgement,” he said.

Santoshi, a director, producer and scriptwriter, is well-known for blockbuster films like Ghayal, Ghatak, Damini and Andaz Apna Apna.