TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.2015, impugned herein, has been passed by the Appellate Court i.e. learned Sessions Judge, Solan wherein under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') sentence, imposed upon the petitioner, has been suspended, during pendency of appeal, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount within one month and also subject to deposit of 50% of compensation amount within four months from the date of order. 3 Petitioners are aggrieved from imposition of condition of deposit of 50% of amount of compensation on the ground that impugned order is without jurisdiction and against the provisions of Cr.PC. 4 It is canvassed on behalf of petitioner that provisions of Cr.P.C. do not warrant or empower the Appellate Court to direct deposit of the compensation amount or part thereof at the time of suspending the sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and that since compensation does not form part of fine imposed by Magistrate, therefore, convict cannot be called upon to deposit the same at the time of suspending the substantive part of sentence as for recovery of compensation amount complainant has to resort ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct of legislation and no drawer of the cheque can be allowed to take dishonour of cheque issued by him light heartedly. In the very same judgment, referring its earlier pronouncement in K.Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, reported in (1999)7 SCC 510, has been held that the Magistrate can alleviate the grievance of the complainant by making resort to Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. wherein no limit of compensation to be awarded by the Magistrate has been mentioned and, thus, the Magistrate is empowered to impose a reasonable amount of compensation payable to complainant. 8 In Stanny Felix Pinto vs. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd and another, reported in (2001)2 SCC 416 the Apex Court has upheld the imposition of conditions by the High Court for depositing Rs. 4 lacs out of Rs. 20 lacs, the total amount of fine imposed by trial Court, at the time of suspending the sentence for offence under Section 138 of NI Act with further observation that if fine amount is heavy, the Court can direct at least a portion thereof to be remitted where convicted person wants the sentence to be suspended during pendency of appeal. The Apex Court has observed that while suspending the sentence for offence under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne recovered to be applied in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court. 12 Section 357(3) of Cr.PC provides that Court may also impose the sentence of which fine does not form a part and at the time of passing the judgment may order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation such amount as may be specified in the order to the person, who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of act for which the accused person has been so sentenced. 13 Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. provides that if the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed or if an appeal be presented, before the decision of appeal. 14 In Dalip S. Dahanukar's case the Apex Court has held that provision of automatic stay, provided under Section 357(2) Cr.PC, shall also apply in relation to amount of compensation directed to be paid in terms of Section 357(3) Cr.PC. In this case the Apex Court has further opined as under:- "72. We, therefore, are of the opinion:- (i) in a case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case, not only complaint as well as appeal was preferred before the insertion of Section 148 of NI Act, but impugned order was also passed before that. However, even prior to insertion of Section 148 of NI Act as held by the Apex Court in Stanny Felix Pinto vs. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd and another, reported in (2001)2 SCC 416; and Suganthi Suresh Kumar vs. Jagdeeshan reported in JT 2002(1) SC 220; (2002)2 SCC 420, the Appellate Court has been held to be empowered to impose condition to deposit the amount of compensation or part thereof at the time of suspending the sentence. Further Section 148 of NI Act does not limits the power of Court to pass an order to deposit fine or compensation or part thereof during appeal at the time of suspension of sentence only, but it empowers the Court to pass such order in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under Section 138 of NI Act without any qualification of time for passing such order. Therefore, such order can be passed by Appellate Court at any time during pendency of appeal. This power is not confined only to the stage of suspension of sentence, but it can be exercised at any time. The Court has been empowered to pass order with re....