2016 (2) TMI 1338 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - petitioner is legal heir of the original accused - liability of fine amount or compensation, on the self acquired property of the petitioner - HELD THAT - Here in the case, property which has come into the hands of petitioner was admittedly owned by original accused Saifuddin, by virtue of will deed executed by Saifuddin on 6.10.2010, said property is received by the petitioner naturally, with all liabilities attached therewith. In view of section 70 of IPC, amount of fine and compensation is recoverable from the said property. The trial Court has considered all these legal aspects of the case and thereafter passed the impugned order. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order directing payment of fine and compensation based on legal heir status and property received through will.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested an order from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, challenging the direction to pay a fine and compensation. The petitioner argued that as the legal heir of the original accused and having received the property through a will, the property is self-acquired, making the petitioner not liable for the payments. However, the trial court's order revealed that the respondent was the complainant in a criminal case where the original accused was convicted. The petitioner failed to apply to bring her name on record after the original accused's death, leading to the abatement of the appeal. The trial court directed a fine and compensation to be paid, which the petitioner did not comply with, resulting in a criminal complaint by the respondent.

The trial court, in light of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code, found the petitioner liable for the fine and compensation. Section 421 of the CrPC mandates the recovery of the fine through the sale of the accused's property, while section 431 allows for the recovery of compensation as if it were a fine. The court determined that the compensation, being part of the fine amount, should be recovered through the auction and sale of the late accused's property. The petitioner's argument of not being liable was countered by section 70 of the IPC, which states that the death of an offender does not discharge the liability, and the legal heirs are responsible for the debts using the property inherited.

The court emphasized that the property received by the petitioner through the will was originally owned by the late accused, making it liable for the fine and compensation as per section 70 of the IPC. The trial court's order was upheld, considering all legal aspects, and the writ petition was dismissed due to the absence of illegality or impropriety in the findings.