2021 (8) TMI 1301 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of criminal revision petition - deposit of fine amount shall be a condition precedent even for entertaining the criminal revision petition, preferred by the accused in terms of Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or not - HELD THAT - The High Court could not have made the deposit of fine amount a condition precedent for the purpose of hearing the revision petition. As to what order is to be passed ultimately in the revision petition is a matter entirely different and that would depend on the examination of the matter in terms of the requirements of revisional jurisdiction but, in any case, depositing of fine amount could not have been made a condition precedent for the purpose of even hearing of the revision petition so filed by the appellant. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside - the case is not commented on merits of the case either way and all the aspects relating to revision petition are left open for consideration by the High Court - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in making the deposit of fine amount a condition precedent for entertaining a criminal revision petition?
2. Whether there is a mandatory statutory requirement of pre-deposit for maintaining a revision petition before the High Court?

Analysis:
1. The appeal in question challenged the order of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Revision Petition No.515 of 2020, which imposed a condition that the deposit of the fine amount shall be a prerequisite for entertaining the criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The accused-appellant had been convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to a fine of Rs.6,00,000 with a provision for simple imprisonment in case of default. The Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court's order. The High Court, while considering the revision petition, ruled that the petition would not be entertained unless the fine amount was deposited by the appellant.

2. The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, examined the legal position and observed that there is no mandatory statutory requirement for pre-deposit to maintain a revision petition before the High Court. The Court emphasized that while the ultimate decision on the revision petition's merits depends on the examination of the matter in terms of revisional jurisdiction, making the deposit of the fine amount a condition precedent for even hearing the petition was not justified. The Court set aside the High Court's order dated 15.01.2021, allowing the parties to pursue the matter in Criminal Revision Petition No.515 of 2020 before the High Court.

3. The Court clarified that its decision did not comment on the case's merits and left all aspects related to the revision petition open for consideration by the High Court. Additionally, considering the circumstances of the case, the Court suggested that the High Court assign a reasonable priority to the revision petition and make efforts to reach a final decision promptly. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting the parties the opportunity to proceed with the revision petition without the condition of pre-deposit of the fine amount.