Petitioner in prison defaulted on fine and compensation from a 2006 order. Court exercised inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to grant 15 days to pay amount with interest for release.
Petitioner granted 15 days to pay fine and compensation with 6% interest; release from prison upon compliance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD
Criminal Petition No.6019 of 2009
Dated : 02.09.2009
Between :
Dandam Saki Gopal
….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. and another ….. Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD
Criminal Petition No.6019 of 2009
ORDER:
Heard Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.S.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the second respondent, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, for the first respondent.
In Criminal Appeal No.1274 of 2000 on the file of this Court, the order was rendered on 20.12.2006 reversing the judgment of the trial Court and finding the petitioner herein guilty of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposing a sentence of fine of Rs.5,000/- coupled with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.76,000/-, which is twice the cheque amount, taking a lenient view as the transaction took place about a decade earlier to the judgment of this Court. The opportunity not to go to prison provided by this Court was obviously not availed by the accused and neither the fine amount was paid nor the compensation was also tendered and on expiry of six weeks from the date of said judgment, the said judgment became enforceable. However, what
happened in the meanwhile is that the petitioner approached the Apex Court with a special leave petition and now claims that he was not aware of the dismissal of the special leave petition (Criminal) No.795 of 2006 on 21.04.2008 by the Apex Court. The petitioner claims that it is only after the non-bailable warrant issued by the trial Court came to be executed on the dismissal of the special leave petition by the Apex Court, that he came to know about the dismissal of the special leave petition. On execution of the non-bailable warrant, the petitioner is now in prison and he requests for an opportunity to comply with the orders of this Court passed in criminal appeal.
The learned counsel or the Court could not lay hands on any direct precedents on this aspect, but it is well settled by judicial precedents that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure conferred on this Court are not circumscribed by any limits or restrictions except that such powers should be exercised only either to prevent an abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
The material on record shows that the second respondent is claimed to be an agriculturist while the petitioner is a rice miller, who allegedly issued the cheque towards the price of the paddy sold by the second respondent on credit to the petitioner. The second respondent is also not stated to have filed any suit for recovery of the same so far and hence by virtue of the operation of law of limitation, the second respondent may be deprived of any remedy before a civil court concerning this amount by now.
Even under criminal law, the only way by which the second respondent can recover the compensation awarded in his favour is by taking recourse to the procedure prescribed for the recovery of the amount as if it were an unpaid fine, which procedure again involves compliance with lot of procedural formalities and the unavoidable delay necessarily associated with the compliance of such formalities.
Irrespective of his absence of diligence earlier, the petitioner who is now suffering confinement in prison appears to have become chastened to approach this Court to be provided one more opportunity
to comply with the orders of this Court in the criminal appeal. The delay since the date of judgment of this Court till the date of payment, which caused more inconvenience and also loss in terms of money to the second respondent can be attempted to be compensated by directing the petitioner to pay the said compensation along with a reasonable quantum of interest which with reference to normal rate of such post litigative interest adopted by the Courts can be fixed at 6% per annum. Providing an opportunity to the petitioner to pay the compensation with such reasonable rate of interest does not appear to be beyond the scope of securing the ends of justice in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Therefore, the petitioner herein is granted time for 15 days from today to pay the amount of fine of Rs.5,000/- and also to pay the compensation of Rs.76,000/- awarded by the order in Criminal Appeal No.1274 of 2000 on the file of this Court on 20.12.2006 to the second respondent herein along with interest @ 6% per annum on such sum of Rs.76,000/- from 20.12.2006, the date of the order of this Court, till the date of payment and on such compliance within 15 days from today by payment of the fine and compensation with interest, the petitioner shall be released from the prison in which he is confined due to default in compliance with the order of this Court.
The criminal petition is ordered accordingly.
______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J
2nd September, 2009
Note : Communicate operative portion of the order by wire tomorrow on payment of usual charges. B/o. SUR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to grant an opportunity to a defaulter already in prison to pay a fine and compensation awarded in an earlier order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dandam Saki Gopal
The State of A.P.
Second Respondent
G. Bhavani Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
