Harshvardhan Sarangapani vs Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited & Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 824 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                          Date of Decision: 12.02.2014

+                         CRL.A. 863 of 2010

HARSHVARDHAN SARANGAPANI                            ..... Appellant
           Through: None.

                                  versus

KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED & ANR...... Respondents
            Through: None.

CORAM:
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                              JUDGEMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral)

The notice sent to the appellant has been received back unserved.

Earlier, the notice issued to him through counsel was also received back

with an endorsement that he was no more the counsel for the appellant.

2. In a complaint filed by the respondent Kotak Mahindra Private

Limited under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellant

before this Court was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/-, on his

pleading guilty to the charge. Being aggrieved from the said order, the

respondent Kotak Mahindra filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.

13/2010. Vide impugned judgment dated 31.05.2010, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and sentenced the

appellant to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine

of Rs 1,000/-. He was also directed to pay Rs 25,000/- as compensation

to the respondent or to undergo SI for two months in default. Being

aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment dated 31.05.2010, this appeal has

been preferred by him.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took note of the fact that

no compensation had been awarded to the appellant before him.

Referring to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in K.A. Abbas

vs. Sabu Jopseph, Criminal Appeal No. 1052/2010, decided on

11.05.2010, whereby the Apex Court recommended to the Trial Courts

that besides convicting the accused in check bounce cases,

compensation to the complainant should also be awarded so as to meet

the ends of justice and noticing that the sentence imposed upon by the

Metropolitan Magistrate was very minimal, directed compensation

amounting to Rs 25,000/-

4. Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter

referred to as „the Code‟) which was inserted w.e.f. 31.12.2009, gives a

right to the victim to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the

court acquitting the accused or convicting him for lesser offence or

inadequate compensation and such appeal lies to the court to which an

appeal ordinarily lies against an order of conviction of such court.

5. Section 374 of the Code, to the extent it is relevant, reads as

under:

"374. Appeals from convictions.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years [has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the High Court.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2), any person,-

(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or

(b) sentenced under section 325, or

(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session."

6. The appellant before this Court was not convicted by a Sessions

Judge or Additional Sessions Judge nor was he sentenced to

imprisonment for more than seven (7) years. His trial was conducted by

a Metropolitan Magistrate and the sentence awarded to him by the

learned Magistrate was fine amounting to Rs.1,000/-. Even the

enhanced sentence awarded by the learned Additional Judge was the

sentence till rising of the court and fine amounting to Rs.1,000/-.

Additionally he was directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the

respondent. Therefore, the present case is not covered by sub-section

(2) of Section 374 of the code.

7. In view of the provisions of sub-section (3)of Section 374 of the

Code, a person convicted on trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate can

file an appeal to the court of Sessions. The appellant before this Court,

however, did not chose to challenge the order passed by the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate. Even otherwise, he could have appealed only

to the extent of legality and/or adequacy of the sentence.

8. Section 375 of the Code which overrides the provisions of Section

374, reads as under:

"375. No Appeal in certain cases when accused pleads guilty. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal,-

(a) if the conviction is by a High Court; or

(b) if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second class, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence."

Since the appellant before this Court was convicted by a

Metropolitan Magistrate on his pleading guilty, an appeal against the

order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate could be preferred before

the court of Sessions and that too only with respect to the extent or

legality of the sentence.

9. No appeal to this Court is envisaged against an order passed by

the Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge in an appeal against an

order passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate. In fact, the scheme of the

Code, contains no provision for a second appeal except to the extent

provided under Section 379 of the Code where the High Court on an

appeal reverses an order on acquittal and convicts and sentences a

person to death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of

ten (10) years or more. Therefore, the appellant, in my view, cannot

challenge the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in

an appeal filed by the respondent, by way of a second appeal to this

Court.

10. Since the appellant has chosen to file an appeal and not a revision

petition or a petition under Section 482 of the Code, I need not go into

the question as to whether such a petition by him would be maintainable

against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge or

not. Though Section 357 (3) of the Code provides for award of

compensation in those cases where fine does not form a part of the

sentence imposed by the Court, whereas in the case before this Court

fine, though meagre, was imposed upon the appellant, the correctness of

the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in awarding

compensation cannot be examined by this Court since a second appeal

to this Court is not envisaged in the scheme of the Code.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed as not

maintainable.

FEBRUARY 12, 2014                                           V.K. JAIN, J.
b'nesh