IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for uniformity in compensation for cheque dishonour cases, affirming that compensation should reflect the cheque amount and interest, as established in prior Supreme Court rulings.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This criminal revision petition has been filed for setting aside of the judgment dated 08.09.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2020 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner VII-cum Spl. Judge, CBI-II (AHD), Ranchi whereby the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. From the perusal of office note, it appears that undelivered registered cover upon opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has been received stating that the recipient has left the mentioned address and the wife has refused to receive the notice.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State is present.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State on the merits of the case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the complainant who had filed a petition under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 relating to dishonour of cheque of Rs. 23 lakhs on 18.11.2017. The legal notice was issued on 15.12.2017 and despite service of notice, the cheque amount was not paid. Consequently, Complaint Case No. 315 of 2018 was filed. The learned counsel submits that the complaint case remained pending and it was ultimately decided on 29.01.2020.

7. The accused was convicted and there was a direction to pay the compensation of Rs.23,50,000/- in terms of Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a further default clause. The learned counsel submits that the case remained pending before the Court for almost two years, and therefore the compensation amount which was directed to be paid was inadequate. It is submitted that as per the provisions of law, the compensation amount which ought to have been paid was twice the cheque amount.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “R. Vijayan Vs. Baby and others” reported in (2012) 1 SCC 260 and has referred to paragraphs 18 to 20 of the said judgment to submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in all the cases of conviction, the Courts should uniformly exercise the power to levy fine up to twice the cheque amount (keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum as a reasonable quantum of loss) and direct payment of such amount as compensation. The learned counsel has submitted that if 9% interest is taken into consideration, it comes to Rs.2,07,000/- per year and 2 years’ time was taken in deciding the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that learned trial Court has not cited reasons with regard to quantification of the compensation amount.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that arising out of the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, an appeal was filed by both the parties. So far as the opposite party is concerned, their appeal was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2020, which was dismissed on 08.09.2022 and so far as the appeal of the present petitioner for enhancement of compensation is concerned, the same was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2020, which has also been dismissed on 08.09.2022. The learned counsel submits that the learned Appellate Court has refused to interfere by simply stating that the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- over and above Rs. 23 lakhs (being the cheque amount) could not be shown to be arbitrary. The learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the compensation is inadequate and calls for interference.

10. The learned counsel for the opposite party- State submits that the matter is between the petitioner and the complainant. The learned counsel for the State has also submitted that the impugned order has been rightly passed and does not call for any interference. He has also submitted that it has not been indicated as to at whose instance the matter remained pendin