Ravindra Kumar vs Padmanaban

S. Palanivelu, J.—This revision is filed against the judgment, dated 01.02.2007, passed in Crl.R.C. No. 83 of 2006 by the Principal

Sessions Judge, Erode, wherein the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, in C.C. No. 12 of 2005, dated 17.04.2006, was

modified, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 65,000/-.

Petitioner is the accused in the Calendar Case, which was taken on file on the complaint lodged by the respondent/complainant, on the strength

of dishonour of a cheque, reportedly issued by the petitioner on 31.07.2004, for a sum of Rs. 45,000/-.

The Judicial Magistrate, after considering the oral evidence on record, found the petitioner guilty of the offence u/s 138 of The Negotiable

Instruments Act, in short ''the Act'', slapping a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and, in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, also

directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the respondent/complainant, u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C.

Not satisfied with the sentence imposed on the accused, the complainant preferred a revision before the Principal Sessions Court, Erode, in

Criminal Revision Petition No. 83 of 2006, for enhancement of sentence of compensation. On going through the facts, the Principal Sessions Judge

allowed the revision, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 65,000/- and, in default of payment, to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for one year, u/s 397 Cr.P.C.

The accused has carried the said order of enhancement of compensation in revision before this Court. 6. In order to get enlightened about the

nature of relief to be awarded by the Courts below and the relief considered by this Court, a perusal of the relevant provision, namely, Section 397

Cr.P.C. is inevitable, which reads as under:

Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.- (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any

proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the

correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior

Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in

confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.

Explanation.- All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior

to the Sessions Judge for the purpose of this sub- section and of Section 398.

(2) xxx

(3) xxx

Revisional powers of the High Court are very wide but are purely discretionary and exercisable only when there is a glaring defect in the

procedure and a manifest error on point of law, leading to miscarriage of justice. The power of revision is to be exercised only for correcting

injustice and not mere illegality, which may not go to the root of the case. The interference of Court in revision is justified, if the decision rendered

by the Court below is patently or grossly erroneous or there is no compliance with the provisions of law and when there is a violation of the

statutory requirements. As adverted to supra, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court must be exercised, if there is any glaring defect in the

procedure or manifest error on point of law, resulting in a flagrant miscarriage of justice.

Now, the matter has to be looked into, in the backdrop of the above said principles laid down in the illuminating judicial pronouncements.

The Principal Sessions Judge has justified the enhancement of compensation in his order, saying that considering the cheque amount, the

compensation awarded by the trial Court was not adequate and it required enhancement, for the purpose of achieving the object of Section 138 of

the Act. He also followed the principles laid down in various decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court. He further referred to a decision

of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Pran Nath Tikku Vs. Rajinder Maheshwari, in which it was concluded that the Sessions Judge is

empowered to enhance the sentence u/s 397 Cr.P.C. Also, he quoted a decision of this Court in Sasi Polycolours v. Lakshmi Polymers and Ors.

2006 Cri.L.J. 2489 in which it was observed that in order to avoid delay and multiplicity of litigation, the sentence of compensation of twice the

amount of the cheque had to be awarded, in exercise of revisional powerrs.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would draw attention of this Court to a decision in Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jegadeesan 2001 (3) CTC

29 in which it was held that this Court can only alter the nature or the extent of sentence or alter the nature and the extent of sentence, but fresh

compensation cannot be awarded, while exercising the powers of revision u/s 401 Cr.P.C., which envisages exercise of powers u/s 386 Cr.P.C. It

leads to a logical conclusion that the High Court or a revisional Court cannot impose fresh compensation, when the Judicial Magistrate has not

awarded any compensation, but the facts of the case on hand are distinguishable.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2004

(1) MWN (Cr.) (SC) 69 in which it is held as follows:

The use of the expression ""may"" throws light on the legislative intent in the context it is used. It has been used in the permissible sense and does

not make it obligatory. In the aforesaid background, the inevitable conclusion is that if the Appellate Court intends to award compensation, an

opportunity of hearing has to be granted so that the relevant aspects like the need to award compensation, capacity of the accused to pay and

several other relevant factors can be taken note of.

The Apex Court has laid down a dictum that while fixing quantum of compensation, the accused ought to be heard and non-observation of the

procedure would be a violation of principles of natural justice. But, in the present case, no such circumstance is available. The Principal Sessions

Judge passed orders, only after hearing both sides, and rendered a finding that considering the cheque amount and the object of Section 138 of the

Act, the enhancement of compensation was unavoidable. The said finding, in my view, is in accordance with law. Therefore, the decision aforecited

is of no avail to the petitioner.

Conversely, learned Counsel for the respondent garnered support from a decision of the Supreme Court in Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel Vs.

The State of Gujarat and Another, wherein the Apex Court had referred to its previous judgment and reached a conclusion that a Magistrate can

award any sum, as compensation. The relevant portion of the said decision goes thus:

...Even that apart, a Magistrate who thinks it fit that the complainant must be compensated with his loss he can resort to the course indicated in

Section 357 of the Code. This aspect has been dealt with in Bhaskaran''s case (supra) as follows:

However, the Magistrate in such cases can alleviate the grievance of the complainant by making resort to Section 357(3) of the Code. It is well to

remember that this Court has emphasised the need for making liberal use of that provision Hari Kishan Vs. Sukhbir Singh and Others, . No limit is

mentioned in the sub-section and therefore, a Magistrate can award any sum as compensation. Of course while fixing the quantum of such

compensation, the Magistrate has to consider what would be the reasonable amount of compensation payable to the complainant. Thus, even if the

trial was before a Court of Magistrate of the first class in respect of a cheque which covers an amount exceeding Rs. 5,000/-, the Court has power

to award compensation to be paid to the complainant.

In our view, this question does not now pose any practical difficulty. Whenever a Magistrate of the first class feels that the complainant should

be compensated, he can, after imposing a term of imprisonment, award compensation to the complainant, for which no limit is prescribed in

Section 357 of the Code.

The above said decisions on the subject would clearly go to show that certain procedures have to be adopted, while fixing or enhancing the

compensation by the Judicial Magistrate, the first being that both the parties particularly the accused shall be afforded ample opportunity of being

heard; secondly, the other circumstance, namely, in the like nature of cases, the quantum referred to in the cheque and, nextly, the objects of

Section 138 of the Act, not to be defeated.

Inasmuch as the order under challenge, the same was passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, after considering the above aspects and

following the guidelines formulated in the authoritative judicial pronouncements. Hence, this Court does not find any manifest error or any

miscarriage of justice in the said order. The enhancement ordered by the Principal Sessions Court, Erode, is well within the four corners of law and

the same deserves confirmation.

For the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Crl.M.P. Nos. 1 and 3 of 2007

stand closed.