Rajeev Khandelwal Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr (Supreme Court of India)
The appellant was convicted u/s 138 NI Act. His appeal before Sessions Court failed. In revision before the Bombay High Court, parties arrived at a settlement & the complainant agreed to compound the offence. The High Court accepted compounding but, relying upon Damodar S. Prabhu Vs Sayed Babalal H (2010) 5 SCC 663, imposed “cost” to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority. The appellant challenged only the imposition of such cost.
It was argued that Damodar Prabhu invoked Article 142 & therefore its graded cost-scheme cannot be treated as binding law. Further, when the complainant does not want any additional payment & settlement is complete, directing payment to Legal Services Authority would discourage settlements at the revisional stage. The appellant also expressed inability to pay such cost.
Supreme Court held that the cost-direction cannot stand. The Court observed that Damodar Prabhu cannot be treated as a binding precedent for mandatory imposition of cost in every case, as each matter must be considered on its own facts. When the complainant has no objection & the appellant is unable to pay, such direction to deposit cost with the Legal Services Authority is unsustainable. The appeal was accordingly disposed of by deleting the cost.
