Back
SANJAY K.AGRAWAL
Sutapa Mukharjee, Wd/o Lt. Shri Sudeep Kumar Mukharjee – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
What is the recoverability of compensation under Section 421 CrPC when the accused has already served substantive and default jail sentences for non-payment in a case under Section 138 NI Act? What is the effect of Section 431 CrPC and the deeming fiction on recovering compensation under Section 421(1) when default imprisonment has been undergone? What are the permissible grounds (e.g., under Section 70 IPC) on which a Court can raise objections to recovery of compensation under Section 421 CrPC, and how should such objections be heard?
Key Points: - (!) The Supreme Court Kumaran (supra) principle holds that compensation under Section 138 NI Act remains recoverable under Section 421(1) CrPC even after default imprisonment has been served. (!) - (!) The deeming fiction of Section 431 CrPC extends to Section 421(1) and to compensation under Section 357(3), enabling recovery despite prior default imprisonment. (!) - (!) The last part of Section 421(1) proviso allows recovery of a fine-ordered compensation via levy warrants even after default imprisonment, as per the Law Commission recommendation; recovery is not barred by default imprisonment. (!) - (!) The petitioner’s contention that compensation cannot be recovered due to service of default and substantive sentences is rejected; recovery can proceed. (!) - (!) However, objections based on legally permissible grounds, including Section 70 IPC, can be raised before the Court during Section 421 CrPC proceedings and decided in accordance with law. (!) - (!) The writ petition is dismissed with no cost. (!) - (!) The decision cites Kumaran v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2017) 7 SCC 471 as controlling authority. (!) - (!) The Court recognizes the ongoing recovery proceedings despite death of the debtor, focusing on recoverability as per statutory framework. (!)
ORDER :
1. Petitioner's husband namely Sudeep Kumar Mukharjee was convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by judgment dated 05/01/2012 and he was sentenced to imprisonment for one year along with a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- payable to respondent No. 2 and it was further directed that in the event of nonpayment of said compensation amount, he would have to serve jail sentence for three months. The said judgment of conviction was appealed by petitioner's husband but ultimately, the appeal stood dismissed by the appellate authority on 06/10/2012. In the meanwhile, recovery proceeding under Section 421 of CrPC was initiated by respondent No. 2 for realizing the amount of compensation, but unfortunately petitioner's husband died on 04/07/2015 and now, the proceeding for recovery of compensation/fine amount is pending against the petitioner which has been called in question by her in the instant writ petition.
2. Mr. Anish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that since petitioner's husband has already served jail sentence of one year as well as default sentence of another three months for nonpayment of compensatio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
