D VENKATA RAJU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. With their consent the petition is being disposed of finally, at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioners were the accused in C.C.No.167 of 1991 before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram. After trial, they were convicted for the offences under Sections 324 and 323 IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and three months respectively and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and Rs. 500-00 respectively. Against the said conviction and sentence, an appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division Eluru. During the pendency of the appeal, the defacto complainant i.e., injured entered into compromise with the petitioners, after obtaining the leave of the court. As a result the petitioners were acquitted by the learned appellate court in view of the composition of the offence. The said order is dated :22-2-1996. Consequent to this acquittal, the petitioners who paid the fine amount before the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, approached the learned Magistrate seeking refund of the amount of fine paid by them. But the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer on the ground that there was no direction of the appellate court to refund the fine amount. The petitioners then approached the appellate court seeking appropriate orders. The appellate court, however, returned the said position on the ground that already judgment'in the case was delivered and it became final. The practical effect of such a return was refusal of the petitioners' claim.

(3.) In view of the fact that the petitioners have been acquitted, it must follow that the fine amount paid by them, by way of sentence, should be refunded to them. The learned appellate court was bound to pass orders of refund of the fine amount. Even though the orders remained to be passed at the time of passing of the Judgment, as the order was incomplete, the orders could have been passed subse- quently by the appellate court. The view taken by the appellate court that the Judgment was already delivered and it became final was incorrect, because there was nothing to be changed in the Judgment. Only further orders were required to be passed,which did not affect the merits of the case. Therefore, the order passed by the learned appellate court will cause great injustice to the petitioners, who are entitled to refund of the fine amount. This is a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to avoid grave injustice to the petitioners, who would be punished even though acquitted, if the fine amount is not refunded to them.