TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable after the petitioner had already pursued a revision before the Sessions Court; (ii) whether the award of interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 at 20% of the cheque amount called for interference.
Issue (i): whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable after the petitioner had already pursued a revision before the Sessions Court.
Analysis: The inherent power under Section 482 is wide but must be exercised sparingly and not as a substitute for a second revision barred by Section 397(3). Interference is justified only in cases of serious miscarriage of justice, abuse of process, jurisdictional error, or non-compliance with mandatory law. Where the same grievances have already been examined in revision, a petition under Section 482 cannot be used to re-agitate the same challenge.
Conclusion: The petition could not be entertained as a disguised second revision, save within the narrow limits of inherent jurisdiction; no such exceptional case was made out.
Issue (ii): whether the award of interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 at 20% of the cheque amount called for interference.
Analysis: Section 143A is directory and confers discretion on the trial court to award interim compensation case by case, up to a ceiling of 20%. The discretion must be supported by reasons, and the conduct of the accused, including repeated adjournments and delay in trial, is a relevant factor. In the present case, the trial court and revisional court recorded concurrent findings that the petitioner had admitted signatures on the cheque, the statutory presumptions operated, and repeated adjournments supported the view that delay tactics were being adopted. The order granting 20% compensation was therefore a reasoned exercise of discretion.
Conclusion: No ground for interference with the interim compensation order was made out, and the direction to pay 20% of the cheque amount was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent orders of the courts below and left the interim compensation direction undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used as a second revision to re-open concurrent findings unless a patent jurisdictional error, abuse of process, or serious miscarriage of justice is shown, and an order under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sustainable when it is a reasoned exercise of discretion based on relevant conduct and trial delay.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
