S.K. Sahoo, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Subhendu Kumar Swain challenging the impugned order dated 11.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jajpur in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2016 in directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- (rupees two lakhs seventy thousand) before the learned Trial Court within one month pending final disposal of the appeal.
2. It appears from the record that the petitioner faced trial in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road in I.C.C. No.28 of 2014/Trial No.463 of 2014 for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2016, the learned Trial Court found the petitioner guilty under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a period of two years and to pay a sum of Rs. 27,00,000/- (rupees twenty seven lakhs) to the complainant-opposite party under section 357 of Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of said compensation amount, the petitioner was directed to suffer S.I. for two months.
3. When the appeal was preferred by the petitioner challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court before the learned Sessions Judge, Jajpur in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2016 along with two miscellaneous applications i.e. one for bail and other for stay of operation of the Trial Court judgment, the learned Sessions Judge in charge, Jajpur vide order dated 23.05.2016 admitted the appeal and allowed the petitioner to be released on bail and also stayed the operation of the impugned judgment dated 26.04.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court till disposal of the appeal.
4. Subsequently the complainant-opposite party entered appearance in the criminal appeal on being noticed and filed an application on dated 29.06.2016 to direct the petitioner to deposit a portion of the awarded compensation amount in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of Stanny Felix Pinto v. M/s. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2001) 20 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 305, Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. reported in (2007) 37 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 395 and of this Court in the case of Bikram Kumar Jena v. State of Orissa reported in (2010) 47 Orissa Criminal Reports 90.
5. Considering the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the learned Appellate Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- (rupees two lakhs seventy thousand) which is impugned in this revision petition.
6. It is contended that by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kashinath Pattnaik that while passing the order dated 23.05.2016 at the time of admitting the appeal, since two miscellaneous applications were filed for the bail and for stay and both were allowed by the learned Appellate Court and it was directed that the operation of the impugned judgment of the Trial Court shall remain stayed till disposal of the appeal, therefore, the learned Appellate Court was not justified in passing the impugned order dated 11.08.2016 in virtually recalling the earlier order passed on 23.05.2016 in staying the operation of the Trial Court judgment and directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is without jurisdiction and in gross violation of the provision under section 362 of Cr.P.C.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party Mr. Chandrakanta Nayak on the other hand contended that the order dated 23.05.2016 in granting stay operation of the judgment is neither a judgment nor a final order disposing of a case and therefore, section 362 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable. Learned counsel for the opposite party further contended that since at the time of admission of the appeal, the learned Appellate Court had overlooked the ratio decided in the cases of Stanny Felix Pinto (supra), Dilip S. Dahanukar (supra) and Bikram Kumar Jena (supra) and granted blanket stay order of the operation of the Trial Court judgment, when the judgments were pointed out to the learned Appellate Court, he was quite justified in passing the impugned order and therefore, it cannot be said that there is any illegality or impropriety in passing the impugned order so as to interfere with the same invoking revisional jurisdiction and therefore, the revision petition being devoid of merits should be dismissed.
8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced the certified copy of the order dated 06.10.2016 passed by the learned Appellate Court which indicates that the stay order dated 23.05.2016 was vacated and the date was fixed for hearing on the question of appeal. The said order of vacation of stay has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this revision.
9. In view of section 362 of Cr.P.C., once in a criminal case, the Court passes a judgment or final order disposing of the case, the Court cannot alter or review the same unless it is otherwise provided in the Cr.P.C. or by any other law for the time being in force. The provision however will not affect the power of the Court to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The Court becomes functus officio as soon as the judgment or final order disposing of a case is signed. The term "judgment" has not been defined in the Code but it means the judicial determination or a decision arrived at after due consideration of the evidence and all the arguments. A judgment in a trial of a criminal case terminates the proceeding before a Court either in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The provision has been made to preserve the sanctity of a "judgment" or "final order disposing of a case" and to prevent either of the parties the approach the same Court again and again to change the judgment either by altering or reviewing it or to disturb the finality of the proceeding in the case before the said Court. Even the High Court has got no power to alter or review a judgment passed in a criminal case in exercise of its power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, the order passed in a miscellaneous case that to ignoring the settled position of law as enunciated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court or this Court cannot came within "judgment" or "final order disposing of the case" for application of the bar under section 362 of Cr.P.C. though it may be a final order disposing of such miscellaneous case.
10. On perusal of the impugned order dated 11.08.2016 and considering the ratio laid down in the cases of Stanny Felix Pinto (supra), Dilip S. Dahanukar (supra) and Bikram Kumar Jena (supra), I am of the view that the learned Appellate Court has not committed any illegality in directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- (rupees two lakhs seventy thousand) which is a reasonable amount i.e. 10% of the awarded compensation amount. Law is well settled that it the Court is convinced that compensation should be paid, then quantum of compensation is to be determined by taking into consideration the nature of the crime, the injury suffered and the capacity of the convict to pay compensation but it should be reasonable and not arbitrary. It is also well settled that the Court can impose default sentence in case of non-payment of compensation.
11. Therefore, without interfering with the impugned order, I direct that in the event the petitioner deposits the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- (rupees two lakhs seventy thousand) by end of January 2017 from today, the realization of balance amount of the awarded compensation amount shall remain stayed till disposal of the appeal and the appeal shall be heard on merit and disposed of in accordance with law by end of February 2017. The deposit of such amount by the petitioner shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the appeal and the opposite party shall not be allowed to withdraw such amount during pendency of the appeal. If the aforesaid amount is not deposited by end of January 2017 either will-fully or due to absence of means, the Appellate Court can take appropriate steps against the petitioner but cannot dismiss the appeal on that ground as it is a constitutional and statutory right and by denying such right to the petitioner would violate his fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and such right can neither be interfered with or impaired, nor it can be subjected to any condition.
12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Criminal Revision is disposed of.
