Telangana High Court
Smt.P.Satyavathi vs D.John Vijay Kumar, on 7 April, 2021
Bench: G Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1080 of 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed, under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the common order,
dated 21.01.2016, passed in Crl.M.P.No.27 of 2015 and
Crl.M.P.No.848 of 2015 in Crl.A.No.834 of 2014 on the file of the
Special Judge for Trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act-cum-VI-Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.
The facts which led to filing of this Criminal Petition are as
under:
The petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the 1st
respondent/accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act. The said case was taken on file as
C.C.No.444 of 2012 on the file of the VII-Special Magistrate,
Hyderabad. After a full fledged trial, the accused was convicted and
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years
and also to pay compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the complainant,
under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., on or before 31.10.2014, in default, to
suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the same,
the accused preferred Crl.A.No.834 of 2014 before the Court of VI
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. Pending
appeal, the accused preferred Crl.A.M.P.No.434 of 2014 seeking
suspension of sentence of imprisonment. By an order dated
05.09.2014, the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge
allowed the application and suspended the sentence on the same
terms and conditions as imposed by the trial Court, till disposal of
the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.27 of 2015
seeking a direction to the 1st respondent/accused to pay
compensation as directed by the trial Court. Since no orders were
passed in the said petition, the petitioner approached this Court by
filing Crl.P.No.8342 of 2015. By an order, 27.10.2015, this Court,
while disposing of the said Criminal Petition, directed the appellate
Court to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.27 of 2015 filed by the petitioner
seeking payment of compensation, in accordance with law, within
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
Meanwhile, the 1st respondent herein also filed Crl.M.P.No.848 of
2015 before the appellate Court, seeking suspension of payment of
compensation pending disposal of the appeal. By a common order,
dated 21.01.2016, the appellate Court while dismissing the
application filed by the petitioner/complainant seeking a direction
to pay the compensation, allowed the application filed by the 1st
respondent/accused and suspended the payment of compensation
pending disposal of the appeal. Aggrieved by the said common
order, the petitioner/complainant filed the present Criminal
Petition.
Heard and perused the record.
The main contention of the petitioner/complainant is that
apart from the sentence of imprisonment, compensation has also
been imposed by the trial Court and the appellate Court has
erroneously suspended the payment of compensation amount till
disposal of the appeal. In support of his contention, he relied on the
judgments of the Apex Court in R.Mohan v. A.K.Vijaya Kumar1 and
in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col.S.S.Deswal and others v. Virender
Gandhi2.
Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/accused would
submit that the direction of the trial Court to pay compensation
amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs is onerous condition and as such the
appellate Court has rightly suspended the payment of
compensation.
As seen from the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.444 of
2012, the trial Court while imposing substantive sentence of
imprisonment, directed the accused to pay compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner herein under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., in
default, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for six months. The 1st respondent/accused, instead of paying the
said compensation amount, filed the appeal and sought for
suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment as well as
payment of compensation amount.
(2012) Crl.L.J.3953
(2020) 1 ALT (Crl.) 17 (SC)
In Dilip S.Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. And
another3 the Apex Court has clearly stated in Para No.72 as under:
"72. (i) xxxxx
(ii) the appellate court, however, while suspending the
sentence, was entitled to put the appellant on terms.
However, no such term could be put as a condition
precedent for entertaining the appeal which is a
constitutional and statutory right."
Relying on the said judgment, the Apex Court in Surinder
Singh Deswal (2 supra), in para No.10 held as under:
"The opening word of amended Section 148 of the N.I.
Act is that "notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure.......". Therefore,
irrespective of the provisions of Section 357 (2) of
Cr.P.C., pending appeal before the first appellate Court,
challenging the order of conviction and sentence under
Section 138 of the N.I.Act, the appellate Court is
conferred with the power to direct the appellant to
deposit such sum pending appeal which shall be a
minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded
by the trial Court."
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
Criminal Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st
respondent/accused to deposit 20% of the compensation amount
awarded by the trial Court within a period of eight weeks from
(2007) 6 SCC 528
today. However, since the appeal is of the year 2014, the learned
Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act-cum-VI-Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, is directed to dispose of the appeal in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
07.04.2021
gkv/Gsn.
