Compensation can be awarded only when fine does not form part of the sentence, and the power of the Magistrate to impose a fine exceeding Rs. 5,000/- is subject to the ceiling of twice the amount of the cheque under Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J. -

CRM-32584-2016

1. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 10,30,940/- issued by the petitioner-accused 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 5000/-, so in such circumstances learned Additional Session Judge could not order payment of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and so, the impugned order is illegal, 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 Rs. 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 (incl