Bombay High Court
Pawan Amolchand Kasliwal And Anr vs Milind Shriram Patil on 13 July, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.56 OF 2021
(Pawan Amolchand Kasliwal and another Vs. Milind Shriram Patil)
----
Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the applicants
Mr. C.V. Dharurkar, Advocate for the respondent
----
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 13.07.2021
PER COURT :
Heard both the sides.
2. There are inconsistent judgments of the two Courts below. The
Trial Court has convicted the respondent for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 but the Sessions
Court has allowed his appeal and has acquitted him. The present Revision
Application challenges the judgment and order of the Sessions Court.
3. True it is that this is not a proceeding strictly a criminal one. It
is considered to be a quasi-criminal proceeding. While convicting the
respondent, the Trial Court directed him to pay compensation of
Rs.60,00,000/- to the revision petitioners.
4. Pursuant to such direction, the respondent has deposited an
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- while preferring the appeal against the
2 CRIREVN56-2021
conviction. Consequent to his acquittal in the appeal, he is now interested in
claiming back the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.
5. The learned Advocate for the revision petitioners would take me
through the record and point out as to how the respondent has been evading
the warrant and the revision petitioners had to approach the Division Bench
of this Court seeking direction against the prosecution. He would point out
that the amount of compensation runs into lakhs of rupees and the
respondent has merely deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. There is every
possibility of his again misusing the process of law once he is allowed to
withdraw the amount deposited.
6. Per contra, the learned Advocate for the respondent would
submit that for the right reasons, the Sessions Court has allowed the appeal
preferred by the respondent and has acquitted him. There is no provision
now preventing him from claiming back the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
pursuant to his acquittal.
7. The learned Advocate for the respondent would further point out
that the respondent has now been detected with Cancer and is undergoing
chemotherapy and is in dire need of money.
8. At the outset, it is necessary to note that though it is not
considered to be strictly a proceeding of criminal nature and is often
regarded as quasi-civil and quasi-criminal proceeding, the fact remains that
3 CRIREVN56-2021
the compensation that is being awarded is pursuant to the provisions of
Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 143A of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. Needless to state that the factum of
compensation would depend upon conviction or otherwise of the respondent.
At this juncture, though it has to be considered as part of the amount of
compensation, it would not be strictly in the nature of fine, since it is being
awarded under Section 357 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not
under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. Once it is borne in mind that the amount of compensation would
depend upon conviction or otherwise of the respondent, there would be no
provision and propriety to prevent him from withdrawing the amount once
his appeal against conviction has been allowed and is under challenge in this
Revision.
10. The request of the revision petitioners to prevent the respondent
from withdrawing the amount of compensation deposited by him is rejected.
11. The Revision Application is admitted.
12. Liberty to move after three months for final hearing.
[MANGESH S. PATIL]
JUDGE
npj/CRIREVN56-2021
4 CRIREVN56-2021
