HBi^^RWOF^Hltel'T'tS^RI-I.BII-ASR'UR ^llLKSANT: RESPONDEN'T: CrimihalRSviisiOnN6;g'ISof2006 • ;,y^- ^n^Mcti©H,;^ IHarilal Tai^, age3[ 57 years, S/oi^ftrr \;,:" .Ravilal s^ T'ank,: •" R/Q' BastSi^ BaQa^ Fafadeeh, ^Raipyr, Pplipe Statjon ©anj Tahsilan DistriGtRaipur(C.Q.) Versus — ', , •: .•"•>.' <».'•'" . . . • .:... ".' :.. ' . - .•' •••••: '. '''••:••••. • Shri Rarn FlFasad Soni, S/Q Lafe Basanfc LalSonj,agey;jabQut75^ars^R/GiNear Cify Kotwali, Rewa, T^hsil & District -Re\ya.(M.P.):.; ^,' • :';::::'^' • ^ :.':'- • 'u. {Criminal revision underSectiQnSS? readWith401 ofthe CodeofCriminal ' . 'Proeedyre}.:'. ::" •': •: 1 : 1:::' .: '^::::; '::"::. Present:, ';-; . • •: .. ' \ • ' ' , :. ,; .; : • • .' '.;; Mr. V.C. Ottalwar with Mr: Siddharth Rathod, counsel for the applicant/complajnant. Mr. R.K. Gypta, GSunsel for the non-applicaht/accused . Siri^le Bi6nchRl-l<ort(BlelM "r.P.Sharma,J :'•:{-!?;-^:^1;8^0'1%|$?.:';-.'' 1. By tKis revisiori ?und6r I'SectiQn 39'7 rpad with SeGtion 401 of tMe GrP(3, the appljcant has shallengeyiegajity&propriety^ofthejudgmeW 31-7-20Q6passedb^the8thAdditi0nalS^ CriminalAppeal N6.^6/2006, wherebywhileaffirming^^ convietion, prder bf sentenee and order of payment of e^ dated 28-3-2006 passedbytMeJudiejalMaigistratgFirst?©lass,?Rai^EtKiri Criminal ©omplaintGaSe N6^5Q/2Q®6relating?t6^^e^Be^^ Additional Sessioris Juage^Has held thaf^he rion^pplieantflsfTiot^yH for CommissiorT ;of ?o^nc^^ u^ lhstmmehtsAct/1881(1or^^'thetAet')relatingtotwO groundtMattheywergtakenasiadvance.. y '' & ^ • ••. :• .'. ' ' . ' ' ...'•'•••'•'..; '•' '•'• '••••'. ' 2. 1 havre heard |earned^nself6rthepaaies,R^^ •fc" :^.;':' -:^ ;::...; ;:!:' "...-'•' :r...':;. :.'- 'records^of1he:Courts!;belGW.;^;;:'..'^.: ,•/:•'. 3. As per undisputed facrts of the ease, Ahree ch^ques wei®|3§y(|jdRbY^^ hon-applicanttotheapplic^ritviz.;EXs>P-1, P-2, &'P-3.^ 0 ^^ ^'S:::'v.. 'w^; T^^^^^j jjj^jjj^^jjy^, a 'e ^. Section 138 ofthe Actwas filed againStthe non-applicant for dishonour of three cheques. The applicant has examined himself in suppbrt of his complaint and jh his detailed eviderroe he has deposed that the non- applieant has issued three cheques Exs.P-1, P-2 & P-3whieh have been sybsegyently dishonourgd. Byt in para 13 of his cross-examination he has admitted that he has giyen in writing to the non-applicant relating to two cheques Exs.P-2 &'P-3 that he has taken those clieques as advance Relying pn th^aforesaid levidenGe of the applicant, the 8* Additional SessionsJudge (FTC), Raipur has held thatthe hon-applicant is not guilty for commissjon of offenee under Section 138 of the Act relayng to the aforesaid two ejieques Exs.P-2 & P-3 and that the non- .:':'^'.'. • „:-. ' •; . . . _••:.. '.! : _-^ -1:' :-.' applicant isguiltyfor commission ofoffenGe underSection 138oftheAGt relating to onecheque Ex.P-1 andsentenced the jion-applicant to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- & compensation of Rs.30,000/- relatjng tQ theamount of cheque. 4. Learned eounsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the non- applicant has issued >cheqye in discharge of debt or liability. The applicant has denied the suggestion that the non-applieant has not issued eheque retating to payment of i^nding^^^y deposed in para 13 pf his |\fld€!rlce^|athe has giveri inwriting to the non-applicantbn 26-3^8 thaihelias^kenlheaforesaidtwoeheques (Exs.P-2 & P-3) in advance. In the circumstances, after recording aforesaid partofevidence, the Couftwas underpbligation'tore-examine thewitnessandtoprovideoppQrtunityofgiYingexplanatiQninthelightof paras 8, 11 & 13 of his evidence. Leamed counsel fut'thersubmittecl'that as per para 13 of the evidence of the complainant, he has given in writingtothenon^pplicantrelatingtosuchon 26-3-98, bytExs.P;2&P- 3 are not related to the.afbresaid date, they are post-dated cheques of 31-3-98 & 30-4-98. lheaseofpost-datedcheques,asheldbythe Supreme Court in the matfer i^Goaplast (P) Ltd Souza and snotlier, 2003' SCC^(eriy 603, presumption under Section 139 ofthe Act is required to Be drawn thiat thenon-apiplicanth^is^^^ chequeforrepaym^ntof'lOanordischalgeofliabilityIegallyjrecoverable. '•-«; "':.'" '1/'! ^ ! • • ':: •':.:i-' '"'..'. • • 5. On theother hand, learnei:) c&unsel for ttie non-apRli5ant;opposed the revisionandsubrriittedthEittheapplie^ntvvasyrideFobligatjontQexplain the aforesaid statement deposed hirh in para 13 of his evidence, but he himself has not explained ;the aforesaid 'deposition of para 13 ot hiS :l-i I evidence. The applieant has denied the suggestion made to him in paras 8 & 11 of his.eviclence that the aforesaid cheques are not related to paymentofpendingbills, butwhen specifiGquestionwasputtdhim in para 13 relattng to the ac); of the non-applicant, he has admitted .\i;.'.:'IJ':'.'; •:'.:.'.,.. '.'.;• ::'" :-... •:'^ specifically that on 26-3-98, tiehasgiveninwritingto the npn-appliGant that he has takeh two cheques beanrig Nos.115243 & 115244 in advance i.e. he has taken two cheques Exs.P-2 & P-3 in advance. Leamed eounsel furtlrer submitted that this evidence is-self-explanatory and sufficient to proye ttie factthat Exs.P-2 & P-3 have not been issued by the nori-applicant relatihg to any Iban or discharge of any liability legallyrecoverable. '^ X 6. Finding relating tocheques Exs.P-2 & P-3 issubstantially basedon the evidence ofthe applicaht whjch reads as follows: - "II? <IRT ^[€t t f^; t^ R'li* 26-03-98 'EPl' SlRPft 'cpt ^T f?1'lsl*>i tefT SIT f^? R'lJcb 26-03-98 ^ ^lg-dld ^3riN tzp c^ ^t ^p f^Rc^ ^0115243, ^115244, t ^clf'H Tf '^ '^ . : ^1". . ' '•'. : , '•: • :. 7 The apptieant has stated in examinatioii-in-chief that the nQn-apRljcant has issyed three Gheqyes^Ffinal paymeht as Exs.P-1; P-Z has denied the suggestipn in paras 8 & 11 of his cross-examination that Exs.P-1, P-2 & P-3 haye not been jssued?relating to payment of pendihg bills, but when it was Ispecifically ask6d by the non-applicant relating to acknowledgement of two cheques Exs.P-2 & P-3 not relating to Ex.P-1, theapplicanthas'admittedthefactsandsuggestiqnsmadebythenon- applicant that he has given in writing^on 26-3-98 tohon-applicanttnat he has taken two cheques Exs.P-2 & P-3 jn advance. 8. In case of any ambiguity in the evidenee of ahywitness, the party who has produced the witness is underobligafion t6 re-examine the witness in order to remove Isuch ambi®,jity. But in the present case, the lapplicant, who was witness bgfore? the trial Court, has not re-examined himself which shows] that there was n6 ambiguity in his eviclence and while trying to establi§h?tnefact the aGcused/non-applieahtihasissued theehequesExs.P-2^P-3'<fordischargeoflcanorlia6ility\vMenspeciB^ question relating to documentvias putto Him, then no optionwas;IM?te the applicant except toadmit the syggestion made bythie accusey/ncsn- applicant relating fo cheque jssued inadvance; \'\::i^^^ ^ 'i' l' 9, As held by the SupFeme Cqurt in Goaplast's case (supra), post-dated cheques are also liability ancl presumption would be drawn against the person who has issued cheques. In the present case, issuanGe of cheque has riotbeeri disputed by any ofthe parties. By giying specific answer and admissidn, ie applicant has admitted the fact that he has takentwocheques(Exs.P-2& P-3) bearingNos. 115243 & 115244 in advance. ThisstTowsthat;attliattime,thenon-app|icanthasnotissued or executed ttte cheques Exs.P-2 & P-3 fbr discharge of any^debtor liability legallyrecoverable. 10. On the basis of aforesaid statement of the appliGant, the 8t Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur^as ript-committed ariyillegality in holding :-•':.,^t'.•-.'.'?;:':. :::.' .'' 1'':'. ': :' : ~ that the ribn-applieant is not liable for commissioh of offence ynder Section 138 ofth&Act relating tocheques Exs.P-2 & P-3. Althbygh the applicant or the non-appliGant has npt Ghallenged the sentence part of the findingof the trial Courtas well as that of the appellate Court, but the sentenee imposed upon the non-applieant by the trial Courtand modified by the appellate Cburt in CriminalAppeal No.66/2006clear|yrevealthat order of paymentcifcompensation in terms of Section 357 of the CrPC Is contrary to law, While awarding coniR&nsafion, the C;ourtsare required to govern by the prbvisiohs of Section 357 of the CrPC which reads as ^follows:-' , ••: ':-;1:: ':-.;, •'^.''1':..^ :, ' : •: ; "357. Orderto pay?G(jinp!en!Sjation.—-(1)WhenaCQurt jmpose 8 ^otence offineil^ a se^^ sentence ofdeat8)ofwhich fine fbrhns a part, the Cburt may, when passing jtidgment, order the wliole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied— (a)in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution; (b)in the payjtient to the any person of ' compensatiQn^prsffiiyJessorinjyrycausedbythe offence, wheh corriperisatiori is, in ttie opinitin of the Court, reeoveraible by sych persQh in a Civil Court;: : '-:1..'^:: ..' .:. ' ...1' ; ..'.-.. (c)when any p^rgon;js Gonvicted pf any offence for ^ having eaused th&death of anotherpeFsoni or of having abetted 'lhe- eomrnission -of/^^^^ offence,1(i paying^conipensation to tl-ie^efsons, whoare, underthie FataltAccidents Aet, 1855(13 of 1'855), eBtj^d to&rec^er diamagiis 'iSR person sinitenisecl for the ISss resulting 16 [ ;l:'from^such^eath;;;;.;:: :;'.'^.''''';,;''^^ (d)when any^^rebR, is ^nvicrted of any otfen^ whiRh incli.ides theft, Griminal misappropriatiQn, <].' 1 •r— Griniit3al breacln ofWstgoir eheating, pr ctf hayin^ dishonestly reGeivedTor iFetained, br of having VQili.intarilyasstetetfih disposing ofstolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen, in eompensating ariy bona fide purehaser of such property fpr the loss.of the same if\ such property is restQred to the possession offhe person entitledthereto. (2) If the fine is impoSed irr a ease which is suhject to appeal, no sucte'paym^nt shall he made before 4M® period allowed fpr presentihg Ihe appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal t36 pi'esentecl^before the deiiision of tHe appeal.':..•.-;:,.;'•. :. 1:.:..,. :; • ' . :;'. ;: . ';; •.: . (3) WKen a CQHrt imposes a sentence, cifwhich fine does not form:a p^, the^C^ judgmenf, order the^cysed "person to pay, by way Of compenssjtion, syc amount;as may be speeified in the order to1:he personwho has suffered any loss orlinjury by reason ofthea^ forwhich the a been so sentepGed. (4)An orderunderthissectionmayalsobemadeby an Appeilate Court OF toy the High Court or Court pf Session whenexercising its powers ofrevision. (5) At the^ time of awarding compensation in any subsequent ciyil suit relating fo the same matter, the Court shall take into acGEiunt ahysym paid or recovered as Gompensatlonunder this seGlion." 11.1n caseofsentenGeoffinealong;withothersentenees,theCourt is Gompeterittoorderforpayraentofcompensationthewholeoranypartof thefinetothecomplainantorlhevictiminaccordancewittlsyB-section. ('{) of Section 357 and in case when sentence does not form part of fine, then the Gourt-is Gompetent to order for compensation to the complaihantor victimtoanyextent, 12.1n the present case, the appellateCourt hasaffirmed thesentence offine of Rs.4,000/- and has also passed orderTor paymenf of Gonnpensation Qf Rs.30,OQO/-. The order fbr payment ofcompensation pf Rs.30,000/- is contrary to law and the appel^te COurt fias exceected the JurisdiGtidn vested on it. In thelight of sub-section (3) of Section 357 13 the Court was not competent to pass order for paymgnt of compensation extendingtheambyntofsfinei;6.Rs.4;000/-. | The 8 Additional Session^ J'ui.dge (FTC), Raipur hastnot committed any illegality in lloldingthattl .ri6n-applieanthasnotissued^cMeques@Xs.@>:-t 2 & P-3 in discliarge of any debt or liability and botM theiCol.i(:fsibilc)|iB|| have not exceeded thefunscticrtionvestedbnthemor^iledtoj^xe^ offfieGrPC, ^i^-ns •'j'^s;^':^ ' :'^i^S^. l!B18t iSSBNI g.l1 the jurisdiction vested 6n them relating to holding the non-applicant/ accused guilty relating to cheque Ex.P-1. The applieant 6r the non- applicant has notraiSed theground relatihg to illegality committed bytHe Court while awarding compehsation, buf the illegality is 6n the faee 6f record. N- • 14. Conseqyehtly, in exercise of revisibnal jurisdictibn, the order passed by the appellate Court to the extent of payment of compensation of Rs.30,000/- by the non-applicant/accused tothe applicanVcomplainant, is modjfied and hereby set aside. The nori-applicant is hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- under Section 138 of the Act. The .'.'>• ". "••':' ; . :'. ' .• .'•. :- '•:••'• ••' • "•'•• " • '• entire amount of fine shall^e paid to the applicant as compensation under Section 357 (1) ofthe CrPC. 15. The revision steinds disposed of. 16.Consequently.l.A.No. 1/2011 alsostands disposed of. Soma Sd/- TP.Sharma Judge :it». I 1 -Yl A-;' r' /' ''•.1-IBB UNIi iii^i^ 'QS^^s; ^i'^^^S^^' WK • Mf: