Case Title:
Amit Kumar (Deceased) Through His LR's Mother Smt. Sushila Devi Vs State Of Haryana And Another
Date of Order:
July 6, 2022
Bench:
Justice Sureshwar Thakur
Parties
Petitioner- Amit Kumar (Deceased) through his LR's mother Smt. Sushila Devi
Respondent- State of Haryana and another
SUBJECT
Through a sentence order passed on 16.08.2021, the Trial Magistrate had imposed upon the convict a simple imprisonment of one year and also a compromise of Rs. 55,00,000 to be paid to the complainant. The convict challenged this at the Additional Sessions Judge’s Court. During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioner also approached the Appellate Court under Section 389 CrPC. The aggrieved petitioner made an appeal challenging the order of the Appellate Court which became cast under Section 148 of the NI Act. The Court held that these two sections are independent of each other and the Appellate Court may, under Section 389 CrPC, require the convict to deposit a fair portion of the check amount, in addition to personal and surety bonds, to guarantee that the order postponing execution of the sentence of imprisonment takes full effect.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 389, CrPC- This Section is regarding the suspension of sentences pending appeal and the release of the appellant on bail.
- Section 148, NI Act- This Section is regarding the power of the Appellate Court to order deposition of minimum 20% of the fine or compensation ordered by the trial court.
OVERVIEW
- The Trial Magistrate sentenced the convict to a year of simple imprisonment and ordered that he pay the complainant a compensation of Rs. 55,00,000 through a sentence order that was issued on August 16, 2021. At the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, the convict contested this. The convict also addressed the Appellate Court under Section 389 CrPC while this appeal was pending.
- The learned Appellate Court ordered the appellant-convict to provide personal and surety bonds to the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and suspended the execution of the sentence of imprisonment that the appellant was given by the Convicting Court.
ISSUE RAISED
- Would the non-compliance to an order under Section 148 of the NI Act bring about any restrictions upon the liberty of the convict under Section 389?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The petitioners argued that unless compliance qua the order (supra), becomes meted by the respondent accused, thereupon, the order, as, made by the learned Appellate Court concerned, upon, the applicant-convict's application, as, cast under Section 389 of the Cr.PC and wherethrough the learned Appellate Court concerned, proceeded to, during the pendency of the apposite appeal, suspend the execution of the substantive sentence of imprisonment, as, became imposed, upon, the convict, by the learned trial Magistrate concerned, rather becomes amenable for becoming ipso facto vacated or it becoming non est.
- In other words, he contends that the order of May 30, 2022, as, issued upon the complainant's application under Section 148 of the Act, constitutes an imperative condition precedent, rather for even the order postponing the execution of the sentence of imprisonment, as, made by the learned Appellate Court in question, upon, the respondent-application, accused's as, cast under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., rather taking the maximum, and, binding effect.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- Both Section 389 CrPC and Section 148 of the NI Act, work independently of each other, in distinct fields. Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., can never be deemed to become redundant, nor unworkable, as any inference would prove to be against the constitutional principle enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Therefore, even if the accused-respondent, did not comply, with the order made on 30.05.2022, by the learned First Appellate Court concerned, which was cast under Section 148 of the Act, it cannot leverage any conclusion, that would put the respondent-accused into judicial custody.
- Even if the trial magistrate in question did not sentence the respondent-accused to a fine equivalent to Rs. 55,00,000/- but instead instructed her to pay compensation in the aforementioned amount to the aggrieved-complainant, the method for recovering the fine is still the one set forth in Sections 421 and 431CrPC. The basis for this conclusion is the fact that Section 431 of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly requires that any monetary awards made by the Convicting Court to the aggrieved complainant be made through the exercise(s) of jurisdiction under Section 357 of the CrPC.
CONCLUSION
With regard to an order made under Section 148 of the NI Act, even if the complaint has not yet been fully resolved, the learned Appellate Court concerned may still enforce an uncontested order made under the provisions (supra), by rather enforcing it against the accused, who is obviously failing to comply with it, by ordering it to obtain support and by reverting to the authority granted by Section(s) 421/431 of the Cr.P.C. The Section 389 of CrPC and 148 of NI Act stand independent of each other in all aspects.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
