Delhi High Court
Yasah Pal Gupta vs State & Anr. on 8 March, 2018
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 08.03.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 1015/2018
YASAH PAL GUPTA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.K. Gautam with Mr. Abhishek
Gautam, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
08.03.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A.3671/2018 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 1015/2018 & Crl.M.A.3670/2018 (stay)
1. The petitioner impugns order dated 05.12.2017, whereby, the
Revisional Court has rejected the revision petition filed by the
petitioner impugning the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
seeking to recover compensation from the petitioner.
2. Complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner for
having committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act.
3. By judgment dated 03.07.2014, the petitioner was acquitted of
the said offence by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. In an appeal
filed by the complainant/respondent No.2 before this Court, by a
detailed judgment, dated 30.06.2015, the order of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, acquitting the petitioner, was reversed and
the petitioner was held guilty of having committed an offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. By Order of Sentence
dated 31.08.2015, the petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.11,50,000/-. In default of deposit of the fine, the petitioner was to
undergo imprisonment for a period of three months.
4. The petitioner did not deposit the fine and underwent the
sentence in default of deposit of fine of imprisonment for a period of
three months.
5. After the petitioner was released, having undergone the
sentence, the respondent initiated proceedings seeking to recover the
compensation amount. Warrants of attachment were issued which
were challenged by the petitioner before the Revisional Court, which
led to the passing of the impugned order.
6. The Trial Court in addition to directing issuance of Warrants of
Attachment for recovery of Rs.11,50,000/-, further imposed cost of
Rs.50,000/-. By the impugned order dated 05.12.2017, the Revisional
Court modified the order of the Trial Court insofar as additional cost
of Rs.50,000/- was imposed. However, noticing the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Kumaran vs. State of Kerela: 2017(5) JT SC 368,
the Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition.
7. The Supreme Court in Kumaran (supra) has specifically laid
down as under:-
"27. .............The position in law now becomes clear. The
deeming provision in Section 431 will apply to Section
421(1)as well, despite the fact that the last part of the
proviso to Section 421(1) makes a reference only to an
order for payment of expenses or compensation out of a
fine, which would necessarily refer only to Section
357(1) and not 357(3). Despite this being so, so long as
compensation has been directed to be paid, albeit
under Section 357(3), Section 431, Section 70 IPC
and Section 421(1) proviso would make it clear that by a
legal fiction, even though a default sentence has been
suffered, yet, compensation would be recoverable in the
manner provided under Section 421(1). This would,
however, be without the necessity for recording any
special reasons. This is because Section 421(1) proviso
contains the disjunctive "or" following the
recommendation of the Law Commission, that the
proviso to old Section 386(1) should not be a bar to the
issue of a warrant for levy of fine, even when a sentence
of imprisonment for default has been fully undergone.
The last part inserted into the proviso to Section
421(1) as a result of this recommendation of the Law
Commission is a category by itself which applies to
compensation payable out of a fine under Section
357(1) and, by applying the fiction contained in Section
431, to compensation payable under Section 357(3)."
(underlining supplied)
8. The Revisional Court has correctly appreciated the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in Kumaran (supra) and, has correctly
rejected the contention raised by the petitioner that as default sentence
has been undergone, no compensation amount is payable.
9. I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Revisional Court
that despite the petitioner having undergone the default sentence, the
petitioner would remain liable to pay the compensation amount
awarded by the Court while sentencing the petitioner. By merely
undergoing the default sentence, the accused cannot claim discharge of
the liability to pay the compensation amount.
10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition. The petition
is, accordingly, dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
March 08, 2018
st
