Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1112 (ALL)

Hemant Kumar Singh v. State of U. P.

2015-05-06

BHARAT BHUSHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Bharat Bhushan,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. Mr Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is also present. 2. By means of this application, applicant has challenged the order dated 10.3.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2015 so far as it directs the applicant to deposit half of the amount of find imposed by the trial court. 3. It appears that the applicant was tried for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short N.I. Act) in Complaint Case No. 1587 of 2012 (Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs Hemant Kumar Singh). After conducting a full fledged trial, learned Magistrate vide judgement and order dated 7.2.2015, convicted the applicant under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him for one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. eight lacs. Out of the said amount of fine Rs. 7.8 lacs was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. This order was challenged by applicant in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2015 and the appellate court admitted the criminal appeal and released the accused on bail till the final disposal of appeal vide order dated 7.2.2015 and simultaneously the appellate court suspended the part of order dated 10.3.2015 so far as it relates to payment of compensation to the complainant as was passed by the trial court subject to deposit of half amount of fine imposed by the trial court. 4. Evidently the appellate court has failed to consider the provisions of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. which clearly bars the payment of fine in case an appeal is filed against the judgement of conviction whereby the compensation/fine was imposed by trial court and hence the part of the order directing the applicant to deposit the half amount of fine imposed by the trial court is liable to be quashed by this Court. 5. Section 357 (2) inter-alia provides that if the fine is imposed in a case out of which compensation is to be paid no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, if an appeal is presented than before the decision of the appeal. Thus, section 357 Cr.P.C. primarily gives power to a court to order for payment of compensation, which are recoverable as fine subject to other provisions enshrined therein. Thus, section 357 Cr.P.C. primarily gives power to a court to order for payment of compensation, which are recoverable as fine subject to other provisions enshrined therein. Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. specifically bars payment of fine/compensation in case the fine is imposed by the trial court and the same is subject to appeal till the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed or before the decision in pending appeal. 6. In this regard, reliance may be had to the cases of Sri Urvi Dutta Nautiyal Vs State of Uttaranchal and others, 2003(1) RCR 366 and V. Prasada Rao Vs The State of A.P. and another, 2002 Cri. L. J. 395. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed. The part of the order dated 10.3.2015 so far as it directs the applicant to deposit half of the amount of fine imposed by the trial court is hereby quashed. The concerned court is also directed to decide the Criminal appeal pending before it expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment to either side in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.