BALACHANDRAN Vs. JAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was the accused for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No. 10/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Cherthala, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1 st respondent herein. The trial court as per the impugned judgment rendered on 25.3.2013 had convicted the petitioner for the abovesaid offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and in default payment of compensation, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months and that the entire compensation amount was directed to be paid to the complainant under Sec. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. Though the cheque amount in question was Rs.4,20,000/-, the accused had taken a specific contention that the amount due from him to the complainant was only Rs.50,000/-. The revision petitioner accused had also taken up such a stand at the stage of Sec.313 Cr.P.C. questioning process before the trial court. Though the trial court had convicted the petitioner for the dishonour of the cheque for Rs.4.2 lakhs, the trial court while convicting the petitioner had, after imposing the imprisonment till the rising of the court, directed to pay compensation of only Rs.50,000/- by placing reliance on the abovesaid plea of the accused. Since the specific plea of the petitioner was that he was liable only for Rs.50,000/-, the petitioner was also generally satisfied with the outcome of the verdict, inasmuch as the compensation awarded by the trial court was only Rs.50,000/-. Therefore the petitioner was advised that he need not prosecute any appeal and that he may pay the compensation amount and also suffer the nominal sentence of imprisonment of rising of the court. Thus the petitioner had undergone the imprisonment of till rising of court and also paid compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- to the 1st respondent complainant.

(2.) Later, the 1st respondent herein (complainant) being dissatisfied with the award of the compensation amount, had filed Crl.R.P.No. 20/2013 before the Addl. Sessions Court, Alappuzha to the limited extent of challenging the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- by contending that since the cheque amount was Rs.4.2 lakhs, the compensation amount should also be an equivalent amount and not a lower amount of Rs. 50,000/- etc. So the Sessions Court concerned (the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Alappuzha), after hearing both sides, has passed the impugned judgment dated 25.2.2015 disposing of Crl.R.P.No. 20/2013 by concluding that the impugned finding rendered by the trial court in limiting the compensation only to Rs.50,000/- by placing reliance on the plea of the accused is not correct inasmuch as he was convicted for the offence of the dishonour of the cheque for Rs. 4.2 lakhs and the allowed the revision petition and had set aside the sentence passed by the trial court in C.C.No.10/2010 and had remanded the case to the lower court for limited purpose of consideration with regard the question of calculation of the compensation. When this impugned judgment was rendered by the Sessions Judge of the Sessions Court at the revisional stage, the petitioner herein (accused) was very much aggrieved by the same, inasmuch as he had already paid the compensation amount and undergone the imprisonment till rising of the court and has also paid compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the trial court directly to the complainant on the belief that the complainant is also satisfied with the same.

(3.) Thereupon, the petitioner accused had filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.5484/2015 before the trial court with the prayer to allow further examination of the complainant when the matter is taken up by the trial court consequent to the remand made by the Sessions Court. The said Crl.M.P. was dismissed by the trial court as per order dated 28.10.2015 on the ground that the subject matter of the remand made by the Sessions Court is limited only to the question of calculation of the compensation amount and, therefore, there is no question of allowing any further examination of the complainant, etc. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the trial court dismissing the said Crl.M.P.No.5484/2015 the petitioner accused had preferred Crl.R.P.No.1/2016 before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court as per the order dated 3.9.2016. The abovesaid order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.5484/2015 in C.C.No.10/2010 as well as the abovesaid order dated 3.9.2016 passed by the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, in Crl.R.P.No. 1/2016 are the orders, which are challenged in Crl.M.C.No. 1527/2017, whereas the basic order passed by the Sessions Court, Alappuzha on 25.2.2015 on Crl.R.P.No. 20/2013 filed by the complainant (whereby the matter was remitted to the trial court for the limited purpose of recalculation of the compensation amount) is the subject matter of challenge in Crl.R.P.No.1692/2016.