MADHUSUDAN CHAKRAORTY Vs. LAXMI PRIYA SAMANTA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned judgment and order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhavan, Calcutta dismissing the Criminal Revision No.06 of 2018 and thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 08.11.2017 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court at Calcutta in connection with C-1122/2005 convicting the revisionist/petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakh to complainant/opposite party within two months, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months is the subject of challenge in this revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner/convicted accused submitted that compensation in the given set of facts, as awarded by the court below, should be deemed to be a fine for the purpose of Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code, and conjoint reading of Sections 357/372/374/376 Cr. P.C and Section 64 IPC would show that a sentence of fine imposed by the High Court, Court of Sessions, or Metropolitan Magistrate or any Magistrate of the First Class would be appealable under Section 374 Cr. P.C provided such fine exceeded a sum of Rs. 1000/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.100/- respectively, as provided in Section 376 thereof. It was contended that compensation per se was not appealable at the behest of the convict under the aforesaid provision, unless it formed a part of the fine under Section 357 (1) Cr. P.C. and is appealable as such. Argument was raised further for the petitioner submitting that in view of the decision delivered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of P.S. Mitra alias Partha Sarathi Mitra vs. Manor Travels Private limited & Anr., 2017 CrLJ 3764 : 2017(2) Cal Criminal Law Reporter 178 the remedy of appeal available against such sentence of fine having already been extended, the petitioner should be favoured with that option of preferring appeal against such sentence of fine which he mistakenly filed the revisional application against the order of conviction passed by the learned court below.

(3.) It was contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that jurisdictional error could be challenged at any point of time, and the order passed in revision having suffered from want of jurisdictional error would be nullity and void ab initio.