HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1080 of 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the common order, dated 21.01.2016, passed in Crl.M.P.No.27 of 2015 and Crl.M.P.No.848 of 2015 in Crl.A.No.834 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act-cum-VI-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.
The facts which led to filing of this Criminal Petition are as under:
The petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the 1st respondent/accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The said case was taken on file as C.C.No.444 of 2012 on the file of the VII-Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. After a full fledged trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the complainant, under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., on or before 31.10.2014, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.834 of 2014 before the Court of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. Pending appeal, the accused preferred Crl.A.M.P.No.434 of 2014 seeking 2 suspension of sentence of imprisonment. By an order dated 05.09.2014, the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge allowed the application and suspended the sentence on the same terms and conditions as imposed by the trial Court, till disposal of the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.27 of 2015 seeking a direction to the 1st respondent/accused to pay compensation as directed by the trial Court. Since no orders were passed in the said petition, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.8342 of 2015. By an order, 27.10.2015, this Court, while disposing of the said Criminal Petition, directed the appellate Court to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.27 of 2015 filed by the petitioner seeking payment of compensation, in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent herein also filed Crl.M.P.No.848 of 2015 before the appellate Court, seeking suspension of payment of compensation pending disposal of the appeal. By a common order, dated 21.01.2016, the appellate Court while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/complainant seeking a direction to pay the compensation, allowed the application filed by the 1st respondent/accused and suspended the payment of compensation pending disposal of the appeal. Aggrieved by the said common order, the petitioner/complainant filed the present Criminal Petition.
Heard and perused the record.
3
The main contention of the petitioner/complainant is that apart from the sentence of imprisonment, compensation has also been imposed by the trial Court and the appellate Court has erroneously suspended the payment of compensation amount till disposal of the appeal. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in R.Mohan v. A.K.Vijaya Kumar1 and in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col.S.S.Deswal and others v. Virender Gandhi2.
Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/accused would submit that the direction of the trial Court to pay compensation amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs is onerous condition and as such the appellate Court has rightly suspended the payment of compensation.
As seen from the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.444 of 2012, the trial Court while imposing substantive sentence of imprisonment, directed the accused to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner herein under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., in default, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The 1st respondent/accused, instead of paying the said compensation amount, filed the appeal and sought for suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment as well as payment of compensation amount.
1 (2012) Crl.L.J.3953 2 (2020) 1 ALT (Crl.) 17 (SC) 4 In Dilip S.Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. And another3 the Apex Court has clearly stated in Para No.72 as under:
"72. (i) xxxxx
(ii) the appellate court, however, while suspending the sentence, was entitled to put the appellant on terms. However, no such term could be put as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal which is a constitutional and statutory right."
Relying on the said judgment, the Apex Court in Surinder Singh Deswal (2 supra), in para No.10 held as under:
"The opening word of amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act is that "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure.......". Therefore, irrespective of the provisions of Section 357 (2) of Cr.P.C., pending appeal before the first appellate Court, challenging the order of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, the appellate Court is conferred with the power to direct the appellant to deposit such sum pending appeal which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court."
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent/accused to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court within a period of eight weeks from 3 (2007) 6 SCC 528 5 today. However, since the appeal is of the year 2014, the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act-cum-VI-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, is directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 07.04.2021 gkv/Gsn.