The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear jail terms linked to non-payment of compensation in cheque bounce cases must be fair and proportionate, while drawing attention to a larger question in criminal justice—How much of a person’s freedom should be taken away simply because he cannot pay money? The ruling has implications for sentencing policy in cheque dishonor and other prosecutions and the broader debate on economic inequality in criminal justice.The Bench asserted that the “cost of liberty must be proportionate” while indicating that jail terms linked to unpaid fines or compensation could not become arbitrary or disproportionately harsh for poorer convicts.The ruling is significant it says deprivation of liberty must remain fair, consistent, and not arbitrarily heavier for those unable to pay. The length of imprisonment should be fixed in a fair and uniform manner, if a convict has to go to jail only because he cannot pay fine or compensation. It has to be linked reasonably to the unpaid amount, and should remain the same for similar cases so that poor convicts are not made to suffer longer jail terms just because they cannot afford to pay.Justice Anoop Chitkara also made it clear that the Executive should ideally have brought in a legislative framework to ensure proportionate sentencing, especially in cases where incarceration was linked to non-payment of compensation. In the absence of such a law, constitutional courts could not remain passive spectators.In his detailed order, Justice Chitkara asserted the fundamental principle that emerged as “a core doctrinal concern in criminal jurisprudence” was the price a convict paid for the curtailment of freedom due to incarceration for non-payment of fine/compensation amount.“How many ounces of flesh does a convict have to pay every day for the inability to pay the money? It was for the Executive to have tabled legislation for the proportionate sentencing, and in its absence, the High Court—which is a primary guardian of an individual’s fundamental rights—cannot remain in the cocoon of a deep slumber,” Justice Chitkara asserted.The Bench added the seeds of proportionate sentencing had “now sprouted” and the “green shoots were visible in every jurisdiction”. “To give meaning to the concept of equality and the principle of parity as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the period of imprisonment a convict has to undergo for non-payment of fine and compensation must be equivalent to the money unpaid and consistent with that imposed on similarly placed convicts.  Cost of liberty must be proportionate,” Justice Chitkara asserted.The observations came in a revision petition filed by a convict challenging concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court had sentenced him to one year’s simple imprisonment and directed payment of Rs 5.70 lakh compensation against a cheque amount of Rs 3.80 lakh. The appellate court had upheld the conviction, sentence and compensation. Before the High Court, the convict confined his plea to reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, pleading inability to pay. The complainant opposed any reduction unless compensation was increased. After hearing both sides, the court examined 114 days of custody undergone against the unpaid compensation amount. Using a proportionality calculation, Justice Chitkara noted that with Rs 5.70 lakh remaining unpaid and 114 days spent in custody, the imprisonment translated into approximately Rs 5,000 per day. It observed: “The calculation set out above indicates that the convict compromised his liberty for the non-payment of money, which comes to a meager amount of Rs. 5000 every day.”Considering the cheque amount, compensation awarded and sentence already undergone, Justice Chitkara asserted the ends of justice would be met by reducing the jail term to the custody already undergone. At the same time, the Bench enhanced the compensation by Rs 40,000 — from Rs 5.70 lakh to Rs 6.10 lakh — maintained the conviction, and ordered the convict’s immediate release subject to not being required in any other case. The amount deposited, along with accrued interest after deductions, was directed to be transferred to the complainant’s sole bank account.