Does the court impose the condition of the deposit of fine for hearing criminal revision by a convict in a cheque dishonour case?

Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the

case as also the law applicable, we are clearly of the view that

the High Court could not have made the deposit of fine amount a

condition precedent for the purpose of hearing the revision

petition. As to what order is to be passed ultimately in the

revision petition is a matter entirely different and that would

depend on the examination of the matter in terms of the

requirements of revisional jurisdiction but, in any case,

depositing of fine amount could not have been made a condition

precedent for the purpose of even hearing of the revision petition

so filed by the appellant.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).747 OF 2021

R KALAI SELVI  Vs  BHEEMAPPA

Dated: AUGUST 04, 2021.

Leave granted.

The short point in this appeal, against the order dated

15.01.2021, as passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal

Revision Petition No.515 of 2020, is as to whether the High Court

was justified in providing that the deposit of fine amount shall be

a condition precedent even for entertaining the criminal revision

petition, preferred by the accused in terms of Section 397 read

with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short

“Cr.P.C.”)?

The relevant background aspects of the matter are that in the

complaint case instituted at the instance of the respondent, the

Trial Court, by its judgment and order dated 29.08.2019, convicted

the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced her to fine in the

sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) with the stipulation

that in the event of default in payment of fine, she would undergo

simple imprisonment for six months. An amount of Rs.5,90,000/- was

directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation in terms of

Section 357 Cr.P.C. and the balance amount was to be remitted to

the State. The appeal taken by the accused-appellant was dismissed

by the Appellate Court on 12.06.2020, maintaining the order of the

Trial Court. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court by

filing Criminal Revision Petition No.515 of 2020.

While dealing with the said criminal revision petition, the

learned Single Judge of the High Court has taken note of the

requirements of the order passed by the Trial Court, particularly

the deposit of fine amount by the accused-appellant and thereafter,

has observed that unless the fine amount was deposited, the

appellant would not be entitled to press into service the hearing

of criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. Learned Single Judge has, inter alia, observed

in the impugned order dated 15.01.2021 thus:

“…..Unless the fine amount is deposited by the

petitioner herein, the petitioner is not

entitled to press into service the hearing of

this petition which is filed under Section 397

read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.”

Learned Single Judge has, therefore, ordered that the criminal

revision petition shall not be entertained unless the fine amount

is deposited by the appellant.

Challenging the order so passed by the learned Single Judge,

the accused-appellant has approached this Court and it is

essentially submitted that the High Court was not justified in

imposing a condition of pre-deposit of the fine amount for the

purpose of hearing the appellant’s petition.

Learned counsel for the respondent has attempted his best to

support the order passed by the High Court but could not dispute

the position that there is no such mandatory statutory requirement

of pre-deposit for the purpose of maintaining the revision petition

before the High Court.

Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the

case as also the law applicable, we are clearly of the view that

the High Court could not have made the deposit of fine amount a

condition precedent for the purpose of hearing the revision

petition. As to what order is to be passed ultimately in the

revision petition is a matter entirely different and that would

depend on the examination of the matter in terms of the

requirements of revisional jurisdiction but, in any case,

depositing of fine amount could not have been made a condition

precedent for the purpose of even hearing of the revision petition

so filed by the appellant.

In view of the above, we are unable to approve the impugned

order passed by the High Court on 15.01.2021. The impugned order

is, therefore, set aside. It is left open for the parties to pursue

the matter in Criminal Revision Petition No.515 of 2020 before the

High Court.

It goes without saying that we have not commented on merits of

the case either way and all the aspects relating to revision

petition are left open for consideration by the High Court. Having

regard to the circumstances of the case, we may also observe that

the High Court may assign a reasonable priority to the revision

petition and make an endeavour to take a final decision on the same

expeditiously.

The appeal is allowed accordingly and to the extent indicated

above.

......................J.

[VINEET SARAN]

......................J.

[DINESH MAHESHWARI]

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 04, 2021.

Print Page