RAJESH SONI Vs. KANTA CHANDVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 21/10/2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Revision No.12/2022 arising out of the order dtd. 10/3/2022 passed by the JMFC, Rajnandgaon whereby, a direction for recovery of compensation to the tune of Rs.29.00 lacs in Criminal Case No.255/2017 was given by invoking the provision under Sec. 421 Cr.P.C by disallowing the objection of the Petitioner as he has suffered jail sentence in lieu of the compensation, this Petition has been filed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant Ashok Chandvani (now deceased) had filed a complaint against the Petitioner under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the JMFC, Rajnandgaon which was registered as Criminal Case No.255/2017. After completion of trial, the Petitioner was convicted in the said case and was awarded simple imprisonment for 1 month and also sentenced for compensation to the tune of Rs.29.00 lacs payable to the complainant under Sec. 357(3) Cr.P.C with usual default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order sentence dtd. 11/2/2021. The Petitioner has completed the substantive jail sentence of one month and thereafter, remained in jail against the default of payment of compensation and after 6 months of the judgment of conviction and completion of substantive jail sentence, the legal heirs of the Complainant (Respondents herein) have preferred an application before the Court below on 2/8/2021 for recovery of the compensation amount in which, the Petitioner has raised an objection as the original Complainant has died, therefore, no recovery can be made by his legal heirs. However, the Petitioner has also suffered the default sentence in lieu of the compensation but the JMFC has disallowed the said objection and proceeded to recover the said amount from the Petitioner invoking the power vested under Sec. 421(1) Cr.P.C. Against the said order dtd. 10/3/2022, the Petitioner has preferred a Revision, which was also dismissed. Hence this Petition.

(3.) Shri Mayank Kumar submits that the impugned orders are bad in law as under Sec. 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C, the compensation shall be recoverable by such person only and it has no application to cases in which, the legal heirs of a person whose death occurred. Here, as the Petitioner has already suffered default jail sentence in lieu of the compensation, therefore, recovery of the said compensation amount is not just and proper and prays to quash the impugned orders. In support, he placed reliance in the matters of Palaniappa Gounder vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others and Smt. Meel Bai vs. Rameshvar Prasad Chauhan reported in (1977) 2 SCC 634 and 2015 SCC OnLine Chh 1622 respectively.