Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 138—Clarification of Judgment—Petitioner sought clarification on operative part of the judgment dated 06.06.2023 in CRAA No. 83/2017, where court had convicted respondent under Section 138 of NI Act, but trial court misunderstood the direction regarding fine payment, remitting it to Government Exchequer instead of compensating the petitioner.
[Para 3]
Compensatory Aspect—Petitioner argued that the fine amount, resulting from a personal dispute, should compensate complainant rather than be sent to Government—Court noted that while the N.I. Act doesn't specifically address fine distribution, compensation should take precedence, ensuring the complainant isn't left without remedy after lengthy litigation.
[Para 4 & 5]
Compensation
Supreme Court on Compensation in R. Vijayan v. Baby & Anr. and Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, court emphasized that compensation should be a priority in N.I. Act cases to prevent complainants from being disadvantaged, particularly when civil suit limitations have expired during criminal proceedings.
[Para 6 & 7]
Discretion in Awarding Compensation
The court reiterated its stance from Yasir Amin Khan v. Abdul Rashid Ganie that in cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, compensatory aspect must be prioritized—Compensation should match or exceed cheque amount to ensure complainant is fairly compensated, following Section 357 of CrPC.
[Para 8 & 9]
Clarification and Direction to Trial Court
Court directed trial magistrate to ensure that entire fine amount is paid as compensation to the complainant—If fine has been sent to Government Exchequer, it should be withdrawn and paid to complainant—This clarification forms part of original judgment dated 06.06.2023.
[Para 10 to 12]