9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court can extend the time fixed for payment of fine while exercising its revisional powers under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Whether the invocation of powers under Section 482 for extending the time fixed under a judgment is permissible in light of the limitations prescribed by Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Extension of Time for Payment of Fine Using Inherent Powers The primary issue is whether the High Court can extend the time fixed for payment of fines while exercising its revisional powers under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Criminal Revision Petitions in these cases were filed by accused persons challenging their conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court, while disposing of these Revisions, confirmed the convictions but modified the sentences to fines with default sentences, directing that the fines, once realized, be paid to the complainants as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Firm dates were set for the payment of these fines, and failure to pay would result in coercive steps by the trial court to secure the presence of the accused for undergoing the default sentence. The conflict arises from differing judgments by two Single Judges of the Kerala High Court: A.C. Anwar v. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLD 646) and Beena v. Balakrishnan Nair (2010 (2) KLT 1017). The former held that Section 362 does not bar the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482, while the latter ruled that inherent powers under Section 482 are controlled by express powers, including those under Section 362. The latter judgment emphasized that the High Court cannot review its final judgment except for clerical or arithmetical errors as per Section 362. Issue 2: Permissibility of Invoking Section 482 in Light of Section 362 Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. states that no court shall alter or review its judgment or final order except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. Section 482, however, saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or secure the ends of justice. In Beena's case, the issue was whether the High Court could accept a post-revision composition between the accused and the complainant by invoking Section 482, which the Single Judge ruled against, stating it would amount to reviewing its judgment. However, the judge still facilitated justice by directing the complainant to file a statement before the Magistrate Court regarding the receipt of the fine amount, thereby regularizing the action. Supreme Court Precedents: Several Supreme Court judgments were considered, notably: - Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee (1990 (2) SCC 437): Inherent powers under Section 482 cannot override the bar of review under Section 362. - Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal (1981 (1) SCC 500): Inherent powers cannot be used to do something expressly prohibited by the Code. - Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 1): Inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and only when no express power is available. - Mary Angel v. State of T.N. (1999 (5) SCC 209): Section 482 stands independently and can be used to secure the ends of justice. - Dinesh Dutt Joshi v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 8 SCC 570: Inherent power is to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice. Conclusion: The inherent powers under Section 482 are to be invoked sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. They cannot be used to overreach statutory provisions like Section 362, which prohibits altering a judgment once signed. However, granting an extension of time for payment of fines does not amount to reviewing the substantive decision but rather facilitates justice by ensuring the complainant receives the compensation and the accused fulfills the obligation. Such extensions should be granted only once and in very exceptional circumstances, where the inability to pay was due to reasons beyond the accused's control, and it results in a complete and final settlement of issues between the parties. Final Decision: The High Court can extend the time for payment of fines under exceptional circumstances without offending Section 362, provided it does not alter the substantive decision of conviction and sentence. This power should be exercised only once in a case and not successively.
|
