Back
2009 Supreme(P&H) 2219
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mr. Sham Sunder, J.
Ram Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
M/s. E.G. Enterprises and another - Respondents
Cri. Revn. No.841 of 2009.
Decided On : 22 December, 2009
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ashok Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Avnish Mandla, Advocate.
The court has the discretion to enhance compensation under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code if it deems the awarded amount to be meagre in light of the circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
Compensation - Negotiable Instruments Act - The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Appellate Court from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 60,000, as it was considered meagre in light of the dishonoured cheques and the failure of the accused to pay the amount to the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The accused issued two cheques to the complainant, which were dishonoured for insufficient funds. A criminal complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court modified the judgment of the Appellate Court, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 60,000.
Issues: The issue was whether the compensation awarded by the Appellate Court was adequate in light of the dishonoured cheques and the failure of the accused to pay the amount to the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the compensation of Rs. 40,000 awarded by the Appellate Court was meagre and enhanced it to Rs. 60,000, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The revision petition was partly accepted, and the compensation awarded by the Appellate Court was enhanced from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 60,000.
Key Points: - The court has discretion to enhance compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC if the awarded amount is meagre in light of the circumstances of the case. (!) - The Appellate Court awarded Rs. 40,000 as compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC; the revision court found this amount to be meagre given the two dishonoured cheques totaling Rs. 40,000 and lack of payment by the accused. The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 60,000. (!) (!) - The revision petition was partly accepted, modifying the judgment of the Appellate Court to increase compensation from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 60,000. (!) (!) - The factual basis includes two cheques dated 27.07.2006 and 30.07.2006 totaling Rs. 40,000, dishonoured for insufficient funds, leading to a Section 138 NI Act complaint. (!) - The original sentence under Section 138 NI Act was one year RI with a fine; appellate court reduced sentence to one month but upheld compensation of Rs. 40,000; revision petition challenged compensation amount. (!) (!) - The court considered that the ends of justice require higher compensation due to non-payment of the dishonoured amount. The enhanced compensation is Rs. 60,000. (!)
How to determine whether compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC is meagre and should be enhanced?
What is the appropriate enhanced amount of compensation when the original award is Rs. 40,000 in a case under Section 138 NI Act?
What are the circumstances under which a revisional court may modify the appellate court’s compensation award in a Section 138 NI Act matter?
Mr. Sham Sunder, J. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 18.12.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Fatehabad, for enhancement of compensation and the substantive sentence awarded against the respondents/accused.
2. With a view to discharge his outstanding liability, cheque No.721746 dated 27.7.2006, amounting to Rs. 20,000/- and another cheque No.721745 dated 30.07.2006, amounting to Rs. 20,000/-, were issued by the accused/respondent No. 2, in favour of the complainant/revision petitioner. When the cheques were presented before the bankers, the same were dishonoured, for want of "Sufficient Funds". A legal notice was served upon the respondents, but the amount, in question, was not paid. Ultimately, a criminal complaint, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, was filed.
3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the trial Court, came to the conclusion, that them were sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was accordingly summoned.
4. On his appearance, in the Court, notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, containing the sum and substance of imputations, was served upon respondent No. 2, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial.
5. The complainant examined Hukam Chand as PW-1, Ashok Kumar as PW-2 and himself appeared as PW-3. Some documents were also tendered into evidence.
6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted the accused/respondent, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 15 days.
8. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the appellant/accused, which was partly accepted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 18.12.2008, reducing the sentence from 1 year to 1 month, at the same time awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- under Section 357(3) Criminal Procedure Code to the complainant.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision has been filed by the complainant/revision-petitioner.
10. Notice of motion to the limited extent of enhancement of compensation, was only issued.
11. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record, carefully.
12. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Appellate Court, awarded only meagre compensation, though so far not even a single penny, has been returned by the respondents. He further submitted that compensation be suitably enhanced.
13. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that the amount of the cheques was only Rs. 40,000/-. He further submitted that the appellate Court, after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, was right, in coming to the conclusion that compensation of Rs. 40,000/- was adequate. He further submitted that, no ground, is made out to enhance the same.
14. The question arises, as to whether, the compensation awarded by the Appellate Court, is meagre. It is no doubt true, that in addition to the other sentence, compensation under Section 357(3) Criminal Procedure Code could be awarded. The amount of two cheques, which were issued by the accused/respondent No. 2, in favour of the complainant, was Rs. 40,000/-. The amount of cheques has not so far been paid by the accused/respondent No. 2. The Appellate Court only awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, as compensation, which, in my opinion, could be said to be meagre. The Appellate-Court, was required to award suitable compensation, if not to t
