Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 9 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRR No. 3806 of 2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision:09.01.2023
Manoj Kumar .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Himanshu Puri, Advocate for Mr. Sunny K. Singla,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Khaira, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Gagandeep Singh,
Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
CRM-32584-2016
This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for
condoning the delay of 372 days in filing the present revision.
Heard.
Considering the grounds mentioned in the application supported
by the affidavit of the petitioner Manoj, the application is allowed. Delay of
372 days in filing the revision is condoned.
CRR-3806-2016
This revision is directed against order dated 02.07.2015 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby petitioner-accused
has been directed to pay compensation of ₹2,00,000/- under Section 357(3)
of the Cr.P.C. to respondent No.2-complainant; and in default of payment of
the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 months.
2. On perusal of the paper-book, it is revealed that cheque dated
14.06.2011 for an amount of ₹10,30,940/- issued by the petitioner-accused
1 of 8
CRR-3806-2016 (O&M)
Manoj Kumar in favour of complainant-respondent No.2 Rajiv Kumar Jain, was
dishonoured due to 'insufficient funds' in the account of the accused. After making
compliance of the statutory requirements, complaint was filed, in which after
holding necessary trial, conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act of the accused-petitioner was recorded by learned Trial Court on
14.07.2014. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- for committing the said offence.
3. Against the above-said conviction & sentence, petitioner-accused
filed appeal seeking acquittal; whereas complainant-respondent No.2 filed
revision for enhancement of sentence.
4. Learned Additional Session Judge, Sangrur, though dismissed the
appeal of the accused-petitioner but partly accepted the revision for enhancement
of sentence on 02.07.2015. Vide this order, petitioner was directed to pay an
amount of ₹2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant-respondent No.2 and
in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of four months.
5. It is the above-said order, which is assailed by the accused-petitioner
by way of present revision. It is submitted that as per the settled proposition of
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Vijayan V.Baby & Anr.
2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 743, after awarding sentence of fine, the Court cannot
pass order, directing the accused to pay compensation under Section 357(3)
Cr.P.C. As in the present case, learned JMIC, Malerkotla vide judgment dated
14.07.2014 had already imposed a fine of ₹5000/-, so in such circumstances
learned Additional Session Judge could not order payment of compensation of
₹2,00,000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and so, the impugned order is illegal,
Page No. 2 out of 8 pages
2 of 8
CRR-3806-2016 (O&M)
arbitrary and perverse. It is also submitted that petitioner has already completed
his sentence. Besides, complainant-respondent No.2 has already filed civil suit for
recovery of ₹14,02,118/-, which has been dismissed by the trial Court on
08.07.2016. With these submissions, prayer is made to set aside the impugned
order.
6. Refuting the aforesaid contentions, it is submitted by learned counsel
for the complainant-respondent No.2 that learned Additional Sessions Judge has
rightly relied upon Ajay Bansal V. Smt. Nirmal Jain, (P&H) : Law Finder Doc
Id # 113957 to grant compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to the
complainant and so, the impugned order is perfectly legal.
7. I have considered submissions of Ld. counsel of both the sides and
have appraised the record carefully.
8. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for the
sentence of two years imprisonment or with fine, which may extend to twice the
amount of the cheque, or with both in case of dishonour of cheque for
insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account of the accused.
9. Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for order to
pay compensation. Relevant part of the said section reads as under:
"357. Order to pay compensation.--(1) When a Court imposes a sentence of fine
or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the
Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine
recovered to be applied--
(a) in defraying the expenses of properly incurred in the prosecution;
(b) in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by
the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by
Page No. 3 out of 8 pages
3 of 8
CRR-3806-2016 (O&M)
such person in a Civil Court;
(c) & (d) xxxxxxxxxxx (not relevant)
(2) xxxxxxxxxxxx(not relevant)
(3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the
Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of
compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who
has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person
has been so sentenced.
(4) 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.
(5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to
the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as
compensation under this section."
10. On bare perusal of the above-said provisions, it should be clear that in
case court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence of which fine forms the part,
then the Court may order that whole or any part of the fine recovered from the
accused, may be applied either in defraying the expenses incurred by the
prosecution or to pay compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence,
as per sub-section (1) of Section 357. However, in case fine does not form part of
the sentence, then court may order the accused to pay by way of compensation
such amount, as may be specified in the order to the person, who has suffered any
loss or injury by reason for which accused has been so sentenced, as per sub-
section (3) of Section 357. It is, thus, clear that sub-Section (3) Section 57 is
categorical to the effect that compensation can be awarded only when fine does
not form part of sentence.
11. This legal position was also clarified by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Page No. 4 out of 8 pages
4 of 8
CRR-3806-2016 (O&M)
State of Punjab Versus Gurmej Singh, 2002(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 869 and
reiterated in R. Vijayan Versus Baby (supra).
12. In case, where Court has sentenced accused to imprisonment and also
imposed fine, then the power under Section 357(3) cannot be exercised, as has
been explained in Sivasuriyan v. Thangavelu, 2006(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 330.
13. In the present case, accused was sentenced by learned JMIC to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of
₹5,000/-. Appeal against the said conviction was dismissed. In the revision filed
by the complainant, learned Additional Session Judge, by way of the impugned
order has directed the accused to pay compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
to the tune of ₹2,00,000/-. There is no mention in the impugned order that whether
sentence of fine of ₹5,000/- has been set aside; or whether said fine imposed by
trial court is to be adjusted in this amount of compensation or not. So, it is
assumed that compensation of ₹2,00,000/- has been ordered to be paid in addition
to the sentence of one year imprisonment and fine of ₹5,000/-.
14 It is no doubt true that court has no power to pay compensation under
Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. in case fine forms part of the sentence. However, it is
pertinent to notice that power of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class as per Section 29 (2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to award sentence up to 3 years and fine up
to ₹5,000/-, though later on, by way of an Amendment Act No.25 of 2005, said
Section was amended and the maximum fine that can be levied by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class was increased to ₹10,000/-.
15. Prior to 2002, because of the ceiling imposed by Section 29(2) in
Cr.P.C., the Magistrate were helpless in awarding adequate compensation to the
complainant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Page No. 5 out of 8 pages
5 of 8
CRR-3806-2016 (O&M)
despite the fact that amount of the dishonoured cheque was much higher. As
noticed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Vijayan's case (supra), this difficulty
was later on solved by insertion of Section 143 in the NI Act by Amendment Act
No.55 of 2002 with effect from 06.02.2003.
16. Section 143(1) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code, all sentences under Chapter XVII of the Act should be tried by a
Judicial Magistrate First Class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions
of Section 262 to 265 of the Code, shall as far as may be apply to such trials. The
proviso thereto further provides that it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a
sentence of imprisonment for a term not extending one year and an amount of fine
exceeding ₹5,000/-, in case of conviction in summary trial under that section. In
view of conferment of this special power and jurisdiction upon the Magistrate
First Class, the ceiling as to the amount of fine stipulated in Section 29(2) of the
Court is removed and consequent thereto, in regard to the prosecution for offences
punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, a Magistrate First Class may impose
a fine exceeding ₹5,000/-, the only ceiling being twice the amount of cheque.
17. R. Vijayan v. Baby & Anr. case (supra) related to dishonour of a
cheque in the 1995. Cheque amount was ₹20,000/-. Accused was a widow and a
police woman. On these facts and circumstances, learned Magistrate thought it fit
not to sentence the accused to any imprisonment and rather, imposed a fine of
₹20,000/- only. The said conviction and sentence imposed on the accused was set
aside by the First Appellate Court, which acquitted the accused. High Court
allowed the appeal of the complainant in part. Conviction was restored by
reversing the judgment of the First Appellate Court. However, High Court held
that it could only restore the fine of ₹2,000/- imposed by the Magistrate with
Page No. 6 out of 8 pages
6 of 8
CRR-3806-2016 (O&M)
default sentence but not the direction for payment of compensation under Section
357 (3) of the Code, as it could not co-exist with the imposition of fine. Appeal
against the said order of the High Court was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court
by holding that after awarding sentence of fine, court cannot pass the order
directing the accused to pay compensation under Section 357 (3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
18. While deciding the appeal, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
question as to whether the fine could be increased to cover the sum of cheque
amounting of ₹20,000/-, which was the loss suffered by complainant, so that said
amount could be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code. As
Section 29 of the Code imposed a ceiling, under which Magistrate could not
impose fine exceeding ₹5,000/-, therefore, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court that it was not possible to increase the fine to ₹22,000/- so that ₹20,000/-
could be awarded as compensation from the amount covered as fine.
19. Position in this case is different. The cheque pertains to the year
2011. Section 143 was inserted in NI Act in 2002 and the same came with effect
from 06.02.2003, which as already noticed, provides for power of the Magistrate
First Class to impose a fine exceeding ₹5,000/-, ceiling being twice the amount of
the cheque. It is notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Thus, there is no longer any ceiling of ₹5,000/- on the powers
of the Magistrate to impose a fine. The only ceiling is that said fine should not
exceed double the cheque amount.
20. In the above facts and circumstances pertaining to this case, it is
directed that amount of fine imposed by the Magistrate shall be deemed to be
enhanced to ₹2,05,000/-, out of which ₹5,000/- has already been paid; and the
Page No. 7 out of 8 pages
7 of 8
CRR-3806-2016 (O&M)
remaining amount of fine is liable to be paid as compensation to the complainant-
respondent No.2 under Section 357(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code. On account
of the changed scenario in the legal position, R. Vijayan V. Baby & Anr. case is
of no advantage to the petitioner.
21. Consequent to the aforesaid discussion, present revision is hereby
dismissed. However, sentence as imposed by the Trial Court is modified to the
extent as above.
January 09, 2023 ( DEEPAK GUPTA )
Neetika Tuteja JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Page No. 8 out of 8 pages
8 of 8
