IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.117 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
BHADRAVATHI SHIVARAM,
S/O. H. CHANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
PUBLISHER AND EDITOR OF
"SHIVARAM PARISARA
KANNADA VARA PATRIKE",
PARISARA FARM,
SIDDARA COLONY,
HUNASEKATTE VILLAGE,
H. K. JUNCTION POST,
BHADRAVATHI TALUKA,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 115. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVINDRA B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI RAJASHEKAR,
S/O. C. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
R/O. NO. 120, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
"SHRI KRISHNA",
JAYALAKSHMIPURAM,
MYSURU-570 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S RAMA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION DATED 16.08.2018, PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE IN
CRL.A.NO.189/2017, (CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 500 AND 501 OF IPC).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE:
ORDER
This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 16.08.2018 passed in Crl.A.189/2017 by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru, directing the petitioner/accused to pay additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant within 30 days.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the accused before the trial Court and respondent before the first appellate Court. The complainant was working as a Range Forest Officer and he initiated criminal proceedings against the accused-revision petitioner by filing the private complaint alleging that 3 the accused, being the Publisher and Editor of Kannada weekly magazine "Shivaram Parisara", had published a news in a weekly magazine dated 22.12.2006 that complainant being a Range Forest Officer at the relevant time had taken a lead for theft of sandalwood tree in the Range Forest Office at Bhadravathi, Shimoga District, but the higher officers did not take any legal action against him. Due to publication of false and incorrect information, the complainant suffered mental agony as his image was tarnished. With these averments, a private complaint has been filed before the JMFC Court, Mysuru.
3. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial Court passed the order convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.13,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Some portion of the fine 4 amount was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation. The complainant, being aggrieved by the said order preferred appeal before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.189/2017. The sessions Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence placed on record, modified the order of the trial Court and directed the accused to pay additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days under Section 359 (1) and (2) in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and respondent/complainant.
5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the short point that arises for consideration is :
"Whether the first appellate Court was justified in directing the accused to pay additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-5
and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days?"
6. It is pertinent to note that the revision petitioner/accused has only challenged the order passed by the appellate Court directing him to pay additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and the findings of the trial Court holding the accused guilty and imposition of sentence have not been challenged.
7. The appellate Court considering the relevant provision i.e., Section 359 Cr.P.C. has awarded cost said to have been incurred by the respondent/complainant in prosecuting the case.
8. Section 359 Cr.P.C. reads thus:
"359. Order to pay costs in non-
cognizable cases.-
(1) Whenever any complaint of a non-
cognizable offence is made to a Court, the Court, if it convicts the accused, may, in addition to the penalty imposed upon him, 6 order him to pay to the complainant, in whole or in part, the cost incurred by him in the prosecution, and may further order that in default of payment, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding thirty days and such costs may include any expenses incurred in respect of process-fees, witnesses and pleader's fees which the Court may consider reasonable. (2) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision."
9. In view of the aforesaid provision, the appellate Court is empowered to impose reasonable costs towards process-fees, witnesses and pleader's fees.
10. In the instant case, the appellate Court has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of prosecution witnesses, process fees and pleader's fees. 7
11. As could be seen from the records, the respondent/complainant, being resident of Mysuru, had filed private complaint before the JMFC Court, Mysuru and he was attending the Court on several dates of hearing. Thus, the complainant being a local resident had no occasion to incur travel expenses for himself or for the travel expenses of witnesses. Even there is no convincing evidence to prove that the complainant had incurred expenses to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. While imposing the sentence or awarding additional compensation, the Courts shall have to award the reasonable costs that have been incurred by the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the additional compensation awarded by the Sessions Court is exorbitant and unjustified, while awarding additional compensation it is the duty of the Court to consider the financial capacity of the accused.
8
12. In the instant case, the accused is the Editor and Publisher of the local Kannada Weekly magazine, which does not have a wide circulation. No doubt, the accused might have published the news without verifying the authenticity of the information received by him, that itself shall not be the ground to saddle the liability to pay huge compensation.
13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the appellate Court requires to be reduced to Rs.30,000/-. The said compensation shall be in addition to compensation amount of Rs.12,000/- imposed by the trial Court. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is allowed-in-part.
9
ii. The order dated 16.08.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.189/2017 by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru is modified as under:
"The revision petitioner-accused is directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent-complainant in addition to the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In default of payment of said compensation, the revision petitioner/accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.
Registry is directed to send the records to the concerned Court immediately.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR