9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 924 - SC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - acquittal of the accused - cross-examination of witnesses - requirement of payment of interim compensation as directed in terms of Section 143A of the Act is not complied with - HELD THAT - After empowering the court to pass an order directing the accused to pay interim compensation under Sub-Section 1 of Section 143A, Sub-Section 2 then mandates that such interim compensation should not exceed 20 per cent of the amount of the cheque. The period within which the interim compensation must be paid is stipulated in Sub-Section 3, while Sub-Section 4 deals with situations where the drawer of the cheque is acquitted. Said Sub-Section 4 contemplates repayment of interim compensation along with interest as stipulated. Sub-Section 5 of said Section 143A then states the interim compensation payable under this Section can be recovered as if it were a fine . The expression interim compensation is one which is payable under this Section and would thus take within its sweep the interim compensation directed to be paid under Sub-Section 1 of said Section 143A. The remedy for failure to pay interim compensation as directed by the court is thus provided for by the Legislature. The method and modality of recovery of interim compensation is clearly delineated by the Legislature. It is well known principle that if a statute prescribes a method or modality for exercise of power, by necessary implication, the other methods of performance are not acceptable. Since the right to cross-examine the respondent was denied to the Appellant, the decisions rendered by the courts below suffer from an inherent infirmity and illegality - There are no hesitation in allowing this appeal and setting aside the decisions of all three courts with further direction that Complaint Case No. 244 of 2019 shall stand restored to the file of the Trial Court. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order directing the appellant to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Whether the appellant's failure to deposit interim compensation justified the denial of the right to cross-examine the respondent. 3. Validity of the judgments passed by the lower courts affirming the appellant's conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Order Directing Interim Compensation: The appeal challenges the correctness of the judgment and order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Revision Petition No. 39 of 2021. The proceedings arise out of Complaint Case No. 244 of 2019, where the respondent alleged that a cheque dated 25.02.2019 for Rs.7,00,000/- drawn by the appellant was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court directed the appellant to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant failed to comply within the stipulated period, leading to an extension which also lapsed without deposit. 2. Denial of Right to Cross-Examine Due to Non-Compliance: The appellant sought permission to cross-examine the respondent under Section 145(2) of the Act. However, due to the appellant's failure to deposit the interim compensation, the trial court dismissed this application. The trial court subsequently found the appellant guilty under Section 138 of the Act and imposed a fine of Rs.7,00,000/-, with Rs.6,95,000/- directed as compensation to the respondent. The appellate court and the High Court affirmed this decision, emphasizing that the appellant's conduct showed a reluctance to comply with court orders and an intention to protract proceedings. 3. Validity of Judgments by Lower Courts: The Supreme Court examined Section 143A of the Act, which empowers the court to direct the accused to pay interim compensation not exceeding 20% of the cheque amount. The provision outlines the recovery method for interim compensation as if it were a fine under Section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The court emphasized that the statute provides a specific method for recovery and does not contemplate any additional penalties, such as denying the right to cross-examine witnesses. The court cited precedents to assert that statutory powers must be exercised strictly as prescribed by the statute. Conclusion: The Supreme Court found that the lower courts erred in denying the appellant the right to cross-examine the respondent due to non-payment of interim compensation. This denial constituted an inherent infirmity and illegality in the judgments. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decisions of the lower courts. The Complaint Case No. 244 of 2019 was restored to the file of the trial court, directing it to permit the appellant to cross-examine the respondent and proceed to a logical conclusion. The appellant was also directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation, with specific instructions for the registry to handle the deposited amount. The Supreme Court clarified that it had not reflected on the merits of the case, which would be examined afresh by the trial court.
|
