Allahabad High Court
Raja Ram Baudh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 June, 2022
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1789 of 2022
Revisionist :- Raja Ram Baudh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Navin Kumar,Sudhir Mehrotra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
AND
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1790 of 2022
Revisionist :- Smt. Seema Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Navin Kumar,Sudhir Mehrotra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Since both the above mentioned revisions arise out of same impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court, therefore, they are being heard and decided together by a common judgment.
Criminal Revision No. 1789 of 2022 has been filed by Raja Ram Baudh and Criminal Revision No. 1790 of 2022 has been filed by Smt. Seema Devi. Both the revisionists are husband and wife, respectively.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Vinod Kant, the learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Abhishek Shukla, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the learned trial court vide its order dated 03.03.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 1111 of 2019, under Section 138 N. I. Act, Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura, convicted the revisionists to undergo one year and three months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,10,000/- has also been imposed upon them.
Learned counsel for the revisionists further submits that due to wrong legal advise two separate appeals were filed challenging the order of the trial court, one by Raja Ram Baudh, bearing Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2022 and another by Smt. Seema Devi, bearing Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2022. It is mandatory provision that 20% of the compensation amount shall be deposited for admitting the appeal. In this regard the learned appellate court directed both the revisionists to deposit Rs. 1,02,000/- each, in the court below, therefore, after calculating the said amount it comes 40% of the compensation amount, but as per the Section 148 of N. I. Act, only 20% of the compensation amount shall be deposited.
Section 148 of N. I. Act reads as under:
Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty percent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court:
Providedthat the amount payable under this sub-section shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under section 143A.
(2) The amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant.
(3) The Appellate Court may direct the release of the amount deposited by the appellant to the complainant at any time during the pendency of the appeal:
Providedthat if the appellant is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the appellant the amount so released, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant.
Both the revisions have been filed before this Court regarding imposition of above amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- in each of the appeals, and it has been prayed that the court below may be directed to impose on the revisionists only one set of amount, i.e., Rs. 1,02,000/- in both the appeals arising out of the same impugned order and the appeals may be heard on merits together.
Shri Vinod Kant, the learned Additional Advocate General, also does not dispute this legal question and submits that due to wrong advice two appeals have been filed against one common judgment, therefore, this Court may direct the lower appellate court to accept one set of amount, i.e., 1,02,000/- from the revisionists and both the appeals may be heard and decided together.
Accordingly, in view of above submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of provisions of Section 148 of N. I. Act, as both the appeals have arisen by a common judgment, but due to wrong advice two sets of appeals have been filed by the husband and wife before the court below, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is hereby directed that the court below shall accept only one set of fine from the revisionist for both the appeals i.e., total Rs. 1,02,000/- and decide both the appeals in accordance with law.
The revisionists are directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- within 45 days from today before the court concerned so that the appeals may be heard expeditiously.
With the above observations/ direction, both the revisions are finally disposed of without calling any counter affidavit.
Order Date :- 3.6.2022
Mustaqeem.
