Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2004 (1) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2004 (1) TMI 698 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Scope and ambit of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Requirement of hearing the accused before awarding compensation u/s 357(3) and (4) of the Code.

Summary:

Scope and Ambit of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The appellant faced trial for offences u/s 452, 148, 323 read with Section 149, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant and others for various offences but did not impose any fine. The High Court, however, directed the payment of compensation u/s 357(3) and (4) of the Code, without imposing a fine. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Section 357, noting that sub-section (1) applies when a fine is imposed, while sub-section (3) applies even when no fine is imposed. The Court emphasized that the power to award compensation is not ancillary but in addition to other sentences.

Requirement of Hearing the Accused Before Awarding Compensation:
The appellant argued that the High Court violated principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity to be heard before fixing the quantum of compensation. The State contended that Section 357 does not mandate a hearing before awarding compensation. The Supreme Court held that principles of natural justice must be read into the statute unless explicitly excluded. The Court concluded that an opportunity must be granted to the accused before directing payment of compensation u/s 357(4) of the Code. The expression "may" in the statute indicates a discretionary power, not an obligatory one.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's direction for payment of compensation by the accused-appellant and remitted the matter back to the High Court to grant an opportunity to the accused-appellant for a hearing on the issue of compensation. The adjudication will be limited to the appellant's liability, as others have already paid their respective amounts. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates