Condition Of Pre-deposit Of Fine Amount Cannot Be Imposed To Hear Revision Petition Filed By Convict: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that deposit of fine amount cannot be made a condition precedent for hearing revision petition under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In this case, the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was sentenced to fine in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. It was also stipulated that 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 Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused.

The High Court, while considering the Revision Petition filed by the accused, observed that, unless the fine amount was deposited, the accused would not be entitled to press into service the hearing of criminal revision petition. It was ordered that the criminal revision petition shall not be entertained unless the fine amount is deposited by the accused.

"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.", the bench said agreeing with the accused-appellant contention that the High Court was not justified in imposing a condition of pre-deposit of the fine amount.

While setting aside the order, the bench observed 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.

Case: R. Kalai Selvi vs. Bheemappa ; CrA 747 OF 2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 361 
Coram: Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari
Counsel: Adv Shiv Kumar Pandey, AOR Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, for appellant, AOR Rajeev Kumar Bansal for respondent

Click here to Read/Download Order