Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
18. Purpose of imposition of fine and/ or compensation, however, must be considered having regard to the relevant factors in mind as envisaged under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
19. We may notice that in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, [2006] 3 SCC 178, the law has been stated in the following terms : " … The quantum of compensation will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of such compensation c (by way of public law remedy) will not come in the way of the G aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a civil court, in the enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal court ordering compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
20. The basic question, however, which arises for consideration before us is as to whether we, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, can delve deep into the matter so as to find out the culpability of the respondent herein and pass a judgment of acquittal in his favour. We do not think that we should do so. Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure B has no application in the instant case. Respondent has not preferred any appeal. Even otherwise the complainant had categorically stated in his complaint petition that although his claim was for a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs which amount the respondent is said to have been withdrawn from the bank in contravention of the terms and conditions of the deed of partnership, he accepted his liability at least to the extent of Rs. 7,00,000/-. It appears from c a plain reading of the complaint petition that the respondent had admitted his liability to the extent of Rs. 7,00,000/-. It was found as of fact to be so by the courts below. The said findings do not warrant any interference. The defence raised by the respondent to the effect that the parties had entered into a compromise in the police station and he had to sign a cheque under some D threat or coercion had not been accepted by the courts below. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that had the respondent been able to show that the cheque had been issued not in discharge of a debt but by way of a security pending determination of his liability by an auditor, the matter would have been different. In such an event, the court could have arrived at a finding that the cheque having been issued on the basis of an anticipated profit which E by itself did not create any liability in presenti and the result of the audit might have gone either way, no case under Section 138 of the Act was made out. But, the same is not the case here.
21. The question which now arises for consideration is as to whether any case for awarding a substantial sentence has been made out. We do not F think so. Grant of compensation, in our opinion, would subserve the purpose.
22. Appellant may also file a suit for damages and/ or for other reliefs. We do not know what was found by the auditor upon scrutiny of the books of account of the partnership firm.
23. The relationship between the parties is not disputed.
24. Respondent has not been charged with any fraudulent action. He had a probable defence. Appellant furthermore had not preferred any appeal against the judgment of the learned Trial Judge for enhancement of the H sentence. It may be that quantum of compensation has been altered to that ..,…. . .A -.I. P. SURESH KUMAR 1·. R. Sl!ANKAR [S.B. SINHA. J.] of the fine but in effect and substance the same did not matter.
25. In our opinion, therefore, interest of justice would be subserved, if the respondent is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- in stead and place of a fine of Rs.5,000/-, as has been directed by the High Court. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to get the aforementioned sum of Rs.7,00,000/- by way of compensation.
26. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. Respondent should pay the amount of compensation within a period of eight weeks, if not already deposited, failing which steps may be taken for recovery thereof in accordance with law. S.K.S . Appeal disposed of.