9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to direct compensation to be paid to the Government under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Analysis: The revision petitioner challenged the direction of the learned Magistrate to pay compensation to the Government under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner argued that compensation under this provision can only be directed to the person who has suffered loss or injury due to the act for which the accused has been sentenced. It was contended that the State or the Government did not suffer any loss or injury due to the act related to the cheque in the criminal case. The revision raised concerns about the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in ordering payment to the Government under section 357(3). The learned Single Judge referred the matter to a Division Bench, questioning the decision in a previous case where it was held that in cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is no provision for payment of compensation under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Judge deliberated on whether the expression "the person who has suffered any loss or injury" in section 357(3) includes only the victim or also the State. The Judge highlighted the State's duty to prevent crimes and prosecute offenders, leading to expenses incurred by the State in such prosecutions. The Judge emphasized that the State does suffer loss in prosecuting offenders, necessitated by the crimes committed. However, in the present case arising under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it was noted that the State had no role in prosecuting the case and did not incur any expenses. The Court emphasized that the State did not suffer any loss for prosecuting the case, and the expenditure for administration of justice does not fall under section 357(1) or 357(3) of the Code for compensation. It was reiterated that the Government or State did not suffer any loss or injury due to the act for which the accused was sentenced. The Court further clarified that compensation under section 357(3) is meant for victims who have suffered due to the act of the accused, to reconcile the victim with the offender and respond appropriately to the crime. The Supreme Court's guidelines on determining compensation were referenced, emphasizing that the liability for compensation varies depending on the act of each accused. Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no basis for ordering compensation to the Government or State in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In light of the above analysis, the Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition to the extent that the direction to pay Rs. 2,000 to the Government was set aside, confirming the impugned judgment with this modification.
|
