JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

1. This order shall dispose of above referred cases as the parties involved in them are the same and similar question of facts are involved in them. The revision petitions have been preferred by petitioner-Manna Lal against his conviction and awarding of compensation to the complainant by the learned Appellate Court whereas the appeals have been preferred by appellant-complainant-Ramesh Kumar for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Appellate Court.

Submissions of the petitioner

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused argued that the petitioner was convicted in Cases CIS No.NACT 349/2013, NACT 349/2013, 351/2013, 355/2013, 350/2013, 348/2013 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act') and was sentenced by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh to one year of rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner duly filed an appeal challenging the conviction/judgment dated 07.08.2015, and notably, no appeal was preferred by the complainant against the said judgment.

2A. It was further contended that while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner, the learned Appellate Court erroneously directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation to the complainant, despite the complainant not having filed any appeal or prayed for such relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the powers of the learned Appellate Court under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') are clearly defined; as per which, in an appeal against a conviction by the accused, the Appellate Court does not have the jurisdiction to enhance the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Appellate Court could only affirm or reverse the conviction; however, it could not enhance the sentence, as it erroneously did in this case by ordering payment of compensation.

2B. The learned counsel further submitted that compensation would form an integral part of a sentence, and therefore, by imposing compensation without any appeal or application by the complainant, the Appellate Court overstepped its jurisdiction. The petitioner, who has endured the trial process over several years, has already suffered personal and financial hardships, including the collapse of his business, which was his primary source of livelihood.

2C. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted that the complainant had previously filed a civil suit seeking recovery of the same amount, which had been decreed in the complainant's favour. In support attention of this Court has been drawn to Annexure P-2. Consequently, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the complainant had obtained a civil decree for the said amount, recovering the same through criminal proceedings under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. was unjustified and legally impermissible. Submissions by the complainant

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that Section 138 of the NI Act is a victim-centric legislation aimed at compensating the victim by remedying the financial injury caused. It was submitted that the petitioner had been sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment in five separate complaints filed by the complainant, with the Trial Court directing the sentences to run consecutively. However, during the petitioner's appeal, the Appellate Court modified this, ordering the sentences to run concurrently. Along with this favourable modification, the Appellate Court also directed the petitioner to pay compensation to the complainant.

3A. The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the Appellate Court was fully empowered under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. to impose compensation. The learned counsel contended that as per the various judicial pronouncements and settled law, the power to award compensation is supplementary to the Court's sentencing powers and tha