Sushil Dashmana vs Atar Singh Rawat

Hon''ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.

By means of this petition moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.10.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in criminal appeal no. 85 of 2011, Sushil Dashmana vs. Atar Singh Rawat, whereby the appellant (present petitioner) was directed to deposit one third of compensation directed to be paid by the trial court.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant Atar Singh (present respondent) filed a criminal complaint case no. 1958 of 10, relating to offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh (District Dehradun). At the conclusion of said case the trial court convicted present petitioner Sushil Dashmana u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The trial court further directed that amount mentioned in the cheque shall be paid as compensation to the complainant (in addition to the fund).

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14.09.2011, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, present petitioner (convict) filed criminal appeal no. 85 of 2011, before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun. Vide order dated 10.10.2011, appeal was admitted and the appellant (present petitioner) was directed to be released on bail. However, on the application of interim relief relating to compensation, the appellate court directed appellant to deposit 1/3 of the compensation in the court.

It is argued before this Court on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the provision contained in sub-section (2) of section 357 Cr.P.C., no sooner the appeal is filed recovery of fine automatically gets stayed. I have gone through the said provision of law. It is silent on the point of compensation. It only refers to "fine". Attention of this Court is drawn on behalf of the petitioner to the case of Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and Another, , and it argued that section 357 (2) Cr.P.C., covers "compensation" also. However, the Apex Court while interpreting that "compensation" is included within expression "fine" mentioned in Cr.P.C., has further observed in (ii) of para 60 of the judgment that "the appellate court, however, while suspending sentence was entitled to put the appellant on terms. However, no such term could be put as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal which is constitutional and statutory right."

In the present case appeal has already been admitted by the appellate court and bail has also been granted. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellate court has acted illegally in putting condition on the appellant to deposit part of the compensation in the court. There is no direction from the appellate court that amount so deposited would be required to be paid to the complainant before the disposal of the appeal.

At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that direction to deposit 1/3 of compensation by the appellant is too harsh.

Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned order, in the above circumstances, keeping in mind the spirit of law, the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of summarily with the modification in the impugned order that the appellant (present petitioner) shall be allowed to deposit 1/4 of the amount of compensation in compliance of the order dated 10.10.2011, passed in criminal appeal no. 85 of 2011, by Sessions Judge, Dehradun.