Bhadravathi Shivaram vs Shri. Rajashekar
2021 Latest Caselaw 353 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                     BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

  CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.117 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

BHADRAVATHI SHIVARAM,
S/O. H. CHANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
PUBLISHER AND EDITOR OF
"SHIVARAM PARISARA
KANNADA VARA PATRIKE",
PARISARA FARM,
SIDDARA COLONY,
HUNASEKATTE VILLAGE,
H. K. JUNCTION POST,
BHADRAVATHI TALUKA,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 115.        ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI RAVINDRA B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI RAJASHEKAR,
S/O. C. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
R/O. NO. 120, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
"SHRI KRISHNA",
JAYALAKSHMIPURAM,
MYSURU-570 001.                    ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S RAMA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
                              2


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION DATED 16.08.2018, PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL     SESSIONS    JUDGE,   MYSORE     IN
CRL.A.NO.189/2017, (CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 500 AND 501 OF IPC).

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE:

                           ORDER

This revision petition has arisen out of the

judgment dated 16.08.2018 passed in Crl.A.189/2017

by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru, directing the

petitioner/accused to pay additional compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant within 30

days.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is

the accused before the trial Court and respondent

before the first appellate Court. The complainant was

working as a Range Forest Officer and he initiated

criminal proceedings against the accused-revision

petitioner by filing the private complaint alleging that

the accused, being the Publisher and Editor of Kannada

weekly magazine "Shivaram Parisara", had published a

news in a weekly magazine dated 22.12.2006 that

complainant being a Range Forest Officer at the relevant

time had taken a lead for theft of sandalwood tree in the

Range Forest Office at Bhadravathi, Shimoga District,

but the higher officers did not take any legal action

against him. Due to publication of false and incorrect

information, the complainant suffered mental agony as

his image was tarnished. With these averments, a

private complaint has been filed before the JMFC Court,

Mysuru.

3. On appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence placed on record, the trial Court passed the

order convicting the accused for the offence punishable

under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC and imposed fine of

Rs.13,000/- and in default to undergo simple

imprisonment for six months. Some portion of the fine

amount was directed to be paid to the complainant as

compensation. The complainant, being aggrieved by the

said order preferred appeal before the Sessions Court in

Crl.A.189/2017. The sessions Court, on re-appreciation

of the evidence placed on record, modified the order of

the trial Court and directed the accused to pay

additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default

to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days

under Section 359 (1) and (2) in addition to the fine

imposed by the trial Court.

4. Heard learned counsel for the revision

petitioner/accused and respondent/complainant.

5. Having heard the submissions of learned

counsel for both parties, the short point that arises for

consideration is :

"Whether the first appellate Court was justified in directing the accused to pay additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-

and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days?"

6. It is pertinent to note that the revision

petitioner/accused has only challenged the order

passed by the appellate Court directing him to pay

additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and the

findings of the trial Court holding the accused guilty

and imposition of sentence have not been challenged.

7. The appellate Court considering the relevant

provision i.e., Section 359 Cr.P.C. has awarded cost said

to have been incurred by the respondent/complainant

in prosecuting the case.

8. Section 359 Cr.P.C. reads thus:

     "359.     Order    to    pay    costs     in       non-
     cognizable cases.-
     (1)   Whenever     any    complaint     of     a    non-

cognizable offence is made to a Court, the Court, if it convicts the accused, may, in addition to the penalty imposed upon him,

order him to pay to the complainant, in whole or in part, the cost incurred by him in the prosecution, and may further order that in default of payment, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding thirty days and such costs may include any expenses incurred in respect of process-fees, witnesses and pleader's fees which the Court may consider reasonable.

(2) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision."

9. In view of the aforesaid provision, the

appellate Court is empowered to impose reasonable

costs towards process-fees, witnesses and pleader's

fees.

10. In the instant case, the appellate Court has

awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of

prosecution witnesses, process fees and pleader's fees.

11. As could be seen from the records, the

respondent/complainant, being resident of Mysuru, had

filed private complaint before the JMFC Court, Mysuru

and he was attending the Court on several dates of

hearing. Thus, the complainant being a local resident

had no occasion to incur travel expenses for himself or

for the travel expenses of witnesses. Even there is no

convincing evidence to prove that the complainant had

incurred expenses to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. While

imposing the sentence or awarding additional

compensation, the Courts shall have to award the

reasonable costs that have been incurred by the

complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the

case, it appears that the additional compensation

awarded by the Sessions Court is exorbitant and

unjustified, while awarding additional compensation it

is the duty of the Court to consider the financial

capacity of the accused.

12. In the instant case, the accused is the Editor

and Publisher of the local Kannada Weekly magazine,

which does not have a wide circulation. No doubt, the

accused might have published the news without

verifying the authenticity of the information received by

him, that itself shall not be the ground to saddle the

liability to pay huge compensation.

13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of

the view that the additional compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the appellate Court requires

to be reduced to Rs.30,000/-. The said compensation

shall be in addition to compensation amount of

Rs.12,000/- imposed by the trial Court. Accordingly,

this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal revision petition is allowed-in-part.

ii. The order dated 16.08.2018 passed in

Crl.A.No.189/2017 by the II Addl. Sessions Judge,

Mysuru is modified as under:

"The revision petitioner-accused is directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent-complainant in addition to the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In default of payment of said compensation, the revision petitioner/accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.

Registry is directed to send the records to the

concerned Court immediately.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BSR