2019 (4) TMI 2010 - HC - Indian Laws

Conditional order of suspension of sentence - direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within one month - compensation amounts to form part of fine amount - whether this Court can invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set-aside the order passed by the first appellate Court? - HELD THAT - It has to be noted that the amendment was brought in 2018 in respect of proviso of Section 148 of NI Act and it is made it clear that while exercising the powers in the appeal, the appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such amount which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine amount or compensation awarded by the trial Court, provided that the amount payable under this sub-section shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under Section 143A. Having taken note of the recent amendment brought into Section 148 of NI Act, it is clear that the appellant has to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court. In view of the amendment, it includes fine or compensation awarded by the trail Court. Hence, the very contention of the petitioner s counsel cannot be accepted - this amendment is brought subsequent to passing of the impugned order and if any amendment is brought in, if the matter is pending before the Court, same is applicable to the pending matters and there is no dispute that still appeal is pending before the first appellate Court. Hence, the very contention of the petitioner s counsel cannot be accepted. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. regarding compensation amount.
2. Validity of the conditional order directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount.
3. Impact of recent amendment to Section 148 of NI Act on the case.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to set aside a conditional order passed by the X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of a compensation amount of ?25,50,000. The main contention was based on Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., arguing that since the trial Court imposed a fine of ?3,000 without imprisonment, it was not justified to direct the petitioner to pay the compensation. The petitioner emphasized that the complainant failed to prove the payment or possession of the claimed amount, challenging the conditional order.

2. The petitioner's counsel relied on the judgment in R. Vijayan Vs. Baby, highlighting that when a sentence consists only of a fine, Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to direct compensation payment. The counsel argued that the High Court correctly refrained from converting the sentence to imprisonment for compensation purposes. Contrarily, the respondent's counsel invoked the proviso of Section 148 of NI Act, asserting the trial Court's authority to order compensation payment and suspend the sentence, requiring a minimum 20% deposit by the appellant.

3. The recent amendment to Section 148 of NI Act, effective from 1.9.2018, clarified that the appellate Court may direct a minimum 20% deposit of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court. The Court noted that the amendment encompassed both fine and compensation, rejecting the petitioner's argument that the order was unsustainable due to being issued before the amendment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the conditional order based on the amended provision of the NI Act.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the validity of the conditional order directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount, citing the recent amendment to Section 148 of the NI Act as a basis for the decision.