LexD. PURUSHOTAMA REDDY & ANR. versus K. SATEESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 738 A D. PURUSHOTAMA REDDY & ANR. y I ._ v. K. SATEESH (Civil Appeal No. 4751 of 2008) B AGUSUT 1, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] +~ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.357 (1) and (5) - Issuance of cheque towards payment of loan - Dishonour of '-i c cheque - Initiation of criminal as well as civil proceedings against the defaulter - In criminal case direction to pay the creditor the principal amount - Amount paid - Thereafter de- cree passed for the principal amount as well as interest thereon - Appeal against decree dismissed - On appeal, held: In viev'I D of s. 357, a duty is cast upon the civil court to take into consid- eration the amount paid in the criminal proceeding, even if such plea is not taken by the party - Such order can also be passed by the appellate or revisional court - The mistake .:c.- committed by courts below is rectified in exercise of jurisdic- E tion under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution - Matter remitted to trial court for preparation of fresh decree - Nego- tiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss. 138 and 142. Appellants issued cheques in favour of the respon- dent towards payment of loan of Rs. 2,00,0001-. The F· cheques were dishonoured. Respondent initiated crimi- nal proceedings uls 200 Cr.P.C. rlw ss. 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Trial court convicted the appellants and imposed a fine of Rs. 2, 10,0001- with de- fault clause. It directed to pay Rs. 2,00,0001- out of the fine G to the respondent. Appellants paid the entire amount of fine. Respondent was paid the amount as directed by the court. Respondent had also filed civil suit against the ap- -j. pellants. The suit was decreed by trial court for a sum of H 738 -1 D. PURUSHOTAMA REDDY & ANR. v. K. 739 ..,... SATE ESH Rs. 3,09,000/-. Appellant deposited Rs. 1,90,000/-. Appeal A against the decree was dismissed. The question for consideration before this court was whether the court in civil proceeding can pass a money decree without taking into consideration the amount de- B ...... -.- posited in a criminal proceeding . Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The suit was decreed after the order was passed in the criminal proceedings. Deposit of a sum of c ~ Rs. 2,00,000/- by the appellants in favour of the respon- -.. dent was directed by the Criminal Court. Such an order should have been ~ken into consideration by the Trial Court while passing the decree. [Para 11] [743-D] 2. In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 357 Cr.P.C. a D criminal court is empowered to direct that out of the .,,. amount recovered from an accused by way of fine, com- ..... pensation of a specified amount may be directed to be paid for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the court, recoverable E by a person in a civil court. It is, therefore, evident that the amount of compensation could have been directed to be paid by the criminal court as the same was recoverable by the respondent as against the appellants in a civil court al~o. [Para 11] [743-F-G] F 3. An appeal from a decree, furthermore, is a continu- ation of suit. The limitation of power on a civil court should also be borne in mind by the appellate court. Such an or- der can also be passed by the Appellate Court or by the High Court or by the Court of Sessions when exercising G its power of revision. [Para 11] [743-E, 743-H, 744-A] 4. Having regard to the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 357 Cr.P.C., a duty was cast upon the High Court to take into account the fact that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- had already been paid by the appellants to the respon- H 740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. A dent. It is futile to urge that on the date pn which the civil court passed the decree, the. appellants were. not con- victed. As the appeal is a continuation of the suit and in that view of the matter as the appellants had in total de- posited a· sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-, Le., Rs. 2, 10,0001.: in the B criminal proceeding and Rs. 1,90,000/- in the-civil proceed- ings, out of which a sum of Rs. 3,09,000/- has been with- drawn by the respondent, the High Court was obligated to take th~_ same into consideration. Such consideration . wa!? required to be bestowed on the trial court/Higti court • t •• . • • . despite the fact that the said provision was not· brought C to its notice. Actus curiae-neminem: gravabit (no perso
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.