Madras High Court
Dhandapani vs B.Srinivasan on 22 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.Nos.18137, 18152, 18969, 19017 and 19049 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.18137, 18152, 18969, 19017 and 19049 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7097, 7103, 7515,7542 and 7596 of 2020
Dhandapani ... Petitioner (in all Crl.O.Ps)
Vs.
B.Srinivasan, Proprietor,
Sri Jayakumar Modern Rice Mill,
No:1/52-A, Madhavaram High Road,
Pulliline Village,
Vadakarai Post,
Chennai - 600052. ... Respondents (in all Crl.O.Ps)
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.18137 of 2020: Criminal Original Petition filed
under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in
order dated 13.03.2020, passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate No:II,
Ponneri, made in C.M.P.No:2536 of 2019 in S.T.C.No.312 of 2018 and
set aside the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18137, 18152, 18969, 19017 and 19049 of 2020
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.18152 of 2020: Criminal Original Petition filed
under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in
order dated 13.03.2020, passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate No:II,
Ponneri, made in C.M.P.No:2535 of 2019 in S.T.C.No.310 of 2018 and
set aside the same.
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.18969 of 2020: Criminal Original Petition filed
under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in
order dated 13.03.2020, passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate No:II,
Ponneri, made in C.M.P.No:2534 of 2019 in S.T.C.No.309 of 2018 and
set aside the same.
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.19017 of 2020: Criminal Original Petition filed
under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in
order dated 13.03.2020, passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate No:II,
Ponneri, made in C.M.P.No:2533 of 2019 in S.T.C.No.313 of 2018 and
set aside the same.
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.19049 of 2020: Criminal Original Petition filed
under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in
order dated 13.03.2020, passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate No:II,
Ponneri, made in C.M.P.No:2543 of 2019 in S.T.C.No.311 of 2018 and
set aside the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18137, 18152, 18969, 19017 and 19049 of 2020
For all Crl.O.Ps
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jawahar
For Sole Respondent : Mr.A.Palaniappan
COMMON ORDER
These petitions have been filed to call for the records in order
dated 13.03.2020, passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate No:II, Ponneri,
made in C.M.P.No:2536 of 2019 in S.T.C.No.312 of 2018, in
C.M.P.No:2535 of 2019 in S.T.C.No.310 of 2018, in C.M.P.No:2534 of
2019 in S.T.C.No.309 of 2018, in C.M.P.No:2533 of 2019 in
S.T.C.No.313 of 2018 and in C.M.P.No:2543 of 2019 in S.T.C.No.311 of
2018, to set aside the same, thereby directed the petitioner to deposit
20% of the cheque amount in each cases within a period of 60 days to the
credit of respective cases.
2. The petitioner is an accused in all the cases in the
proceedings initiated by the respondent for offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In all the cases, the
respondent alleged that the petitioner purchased rice in wholesale during
the course of the business transaction on credit basis and he had resorted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18137, 18152, 18969, 19017 and 19049 of 2020
to issue post-dated cheques in respect of the aforesaid transactions. When
the cheques were presented for collection, all the cheques were returned
for insufficient funds. Hence, the respondent caused statutory notice and
initiated proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. While pending the Trial, the respondent
filed petition under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for
direction directing the petitioner to make an interim compensation of
20% of the cheque amount during the pendency of the trial and the same
was allowed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
only after the completion of Trial, it will come to know about that the
respondent is entitled for compensation or not. On the beginning of Trial,
there is absolutely no prima facie to show that the respondent is entitled
for compensation. The provisions under Section 143A of the Negotiable
Instruments Act contemplates that the word used as "may". Therefore, it
is not automatic for the Trial Court to order for damage while pendency
of the Trial. The petitioner is all along appearing before the Trial Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18137, 18152, 18969, 19017 and 19049 of 2020
and he is always co-operating for the Trial. Therefore, there is absolutely
no circumstances awarded for the Trial Court to order compensation even
before the commencement of Trial.
4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment
of this Court in "Crl.O.P.No.15438 and 15440 of 2010" by an order
dated 12.07.2019. It is relevant to extract the provisions under Section
143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act
“ [143A. Power to direct interim compensation.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Court
trying an offence under section 138 may order the
drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation
to the complainant--
(a) in a summary trial or a summons case,
where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in
the complaint; and
(b) in any other case, upon framing of charge.
(2) The interim compensation under sub-
section(1)shall not exceed twenty per cent. of the
amount of the cheque.
(3) The interim compensation shall be paid within
sixty days from the date of the order under sub-
section(1), or within such further period not
exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the
Court on sufficient cause being shown by the
drawer of the cheque..
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18137, 18152, 18969, 19017 and 19049 of 2020
(4) If the drawer of the cheque is acquitted, the
Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the
drawer the amount of interim compensation, 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..
(5) The interim compensation payable under this
section may be recovered as if it were a fine under
section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974)..
(6) The amount of fine imposed under section 138
or the amount of compensation awarded under
section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974), shall be reduced by the amount
paid or recovered as interim compensation under
this section.]”
It is inserted by Act 20 of 2018 with effect from 01.09.2018. Thus, it is
clear that the word "may" shows that the discretion is vested with the
Trial Court to order interim compensation. Therefore, it is not necessary
that in all the cases, the Trial Court must necessarily direct the accused to
pay interim compensation. It should be given only on facts and
circumstances of each cases.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18137, 18152, 18969, 19017 and 19049 of 2020
5. The Judgment of this Court cited by the learned counsel for
the petitioner in which this Court held that the Trial Court failed to state
any reason as to why it is directed the accused persons to pay interim
compensation of 20% to the complainant. When the discretionary power
is vested with the Trial Court in ordering interim compensation, it must
be supported by reasons. The Trial Court failed to state valid reason to
order compensation and as such this Court had set aside the order passed
by the Trial Court. Whereas, in the case on hand, as stated supra, the
petitioner issued cheque for the purchase of rice in wholesale from the
respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to pay the transaction amount
due to which the respondent sustained loss.
6. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances,
the Trial Court rightly ordered compensation of 20% as contemplated
under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the
above Judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not
applicable to the case on hand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18137, 18152, 18969, 19017 and 19049 of 2020
7. Hence, this Courts finds no infirmity or illegality in the
order passed by the Trial Court. These petitions are devoid of merits and
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are
dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.06.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
mn/cda
To
The Judicial Magistrate No:II,
Ponneri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.18137, 18152, 18969, 19017 and 19049 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
Crl.O.P.Nos.18137, 18152, 18969, 19017 and 19049 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7097, 7103, 7515,7542 and 7596 of 2020
22.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
