2021 (3) TMI 283 - HC - Indian Laws

Increase of compensation awarded by the Appellate Court - rejection of Application of the complainant for modification of the said Order by its impugned Order dated 28th September 2020 - HELD THAT - It is a fact on record that, the complainant had instituted complaint on 30th December 2010 and the same came to be decided on 11th February 2020 i.e. almost after nine and half years. As noted earlier, the Trial Court has directed the accused to pay a compensation of ₹ 1,88,30,000/-. The conduct of the accused clearly indicates that, he is intending to procrastinate the litigation. As of today, the accused is a convict and his sentence has been suspended by the Order dated 27th February 2020 passed below Exh.-4 by the Appellate Court. It is also a fact on record that, the accused as of today is successful in protracting the trial for more than 9 and half years and the complainant is the ultimate sufferer for the same - Section 143 of the N.I. Act deals with power of Court to try cases summarily and states that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, all offences under this Chapter shall be tried by Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trials. By amending Act of 20 of 2018 which came into effect from 1st September 2018, Section 143A has been inserted in this statute. Section 143A gives power to the Court trying an Offence under Section 138 of the Act to Order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant. Under Section 148(1) of the N.I. Act, the Appellate Court can direct the drawer of the cheque in an Appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Act to deposit such sum which shall be minimum of twenty percent of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that, the direction of the Appellate Court to deposit 25% of compensation amount is inadequate and needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, the accused is directed to deposit 50% of the total compensation amount in the Registry of the Appellate Court within a period of four weeks from the date of the uploading of the present Order on the High Court website - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Impugned Order dated 28th September 2020 rejecting modification of Order of suspension of sentence.
2. Impugned Order dated 28th September 2020 allowing the release of ?47,07,500/- deposited by the accused.
3. Adequacy of compensation amount to be deposited by the accused during the pendency of the appeal.
4. Responsibility for the delay in trial proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Impugned Order dated 28th September 2020 rejecting modification of Order of suspension of sentence:

The petitioner/original complainant challenged the Order dated 28th September 2020, which rejected his application for modifying the Order of suspension of sentence passed on 27th February 2020. The Appellate Court had suspended the sentence of the accused, directing him to deposit 25% of the total compensation within 60 days, failing which the amount would carry an interest rate of 6% per annum. The complainant sought modification, arguing that the Appellate Court had become functus officio and lacked the power to modify its own Order. The Court found that the Appellate Court's direction to deposit 25% of the compensation was inadequate and needed enhancement to 50%.

2. Impugned Order dated 28th September 2020 allowing the release of ?47,07,500/- deposited by the accused:

The original accused contested the Order dated 28th September 2020, which allowed the complainant to release ?47,07,500/- deposited by the accused as per the Order dated 27th February 2020. The accused argued that the Appellate Court should not have released the amount during the pendency of the appeal and should have imposed stricter conditions. The Court upheld the release of the amount but required the complainant to file an undertaking to return the amount with interest if he did not succeed in the appeal.

3. Adequacy of compensation amount to be deposited by the accused during the pendency of the appeal:

The Court examined whether the 25% compensation amount directed by the Appellate Court was sufficient. The complainant argued that the amount was insufficient and that the accused had protracted the proceedings for over nine years. The Court found merit in the complainant's argument, noting that the accused had already deposited 25% of the compensation. The Court directed the accused to deposit 50% of the total compensation amount within four weeks, modifying the previous Order and deleting Clause No.3 of the operative part of the Order dated 27th February 2020.

4. Responsibility for the delay in trial proceedings:

The complainant argued that the accused was responsible for the delay in the trial, which took over nine years to conclude. The Court noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings within three months, which led to the eventual decision. The Court found that the accused intended to procrastinate the litigation, as evidenced by his reluctance to accept suggestions for resolving the matter. The Court emphasized that the complainant was the ultimate sufferer due to the prolonged proceedings.

Conclusion:

The Court allowed Writ Petition (St.) No.4770 of 2020, directing the accused to deposit 50% of the total compensation amount within four weeks and setting aside the impugned Order dated 28th September 2020 passed below Exh.-10. The Court dismissed Writ Petition (St.) No.7963 of 2020, allowing the complainant to withdraw the deposited amount with the condition of filing an undertaking to return the amount with interest if he did not succeed in the appeal.