9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 1030 - SC - Indian LawsSentence in default of payment of compensation - Held that - Deterrence can only be infused into the order by providing for a default sentence. If Section 421 of the Code puts compensation ordered to be paid by the court on par with fine so far as mode of recovery is concerned then there is no reason why the court cannot impose a sentence in default of payment of compensation as it can be done in case of default in payment of fine under Section 64 of the IPC. It is obvious that in view of this in Vijayan this court stated that the above mentioned provisions enabled the court to impose a sentence in default of payment of compensation and rejected the submission that the recourse can only be had to Section 421 of the Code for enforcing the order of compensation. Pertinently it was made clear that observations made by this Court in Hari Singh are as important today as they were when they were made. The conclusion therefore is that the order to pay compensation may be enforced by awarding sentence in default. In view of the above we find no illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Court in awarding sentence in default of payment of compensation. The High Court was in error in setting aside the sentence imposed in default of payment of compensation.
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Legality of awarding a sentence in default of payment of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction and Sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The accused was tried and convicted by the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He was sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant, with a default sentence of two months of simple imprisonment. This conviction and sentence were confirmed by the IIIrd Additional Fast Track District & Sessions Judge, Chennai, and subsequently by the High Court, with the exception of the default sentence in case of non-payment of compensation, which the High Court set aside. The complainant's case was that the accused and his wife borrowed Rs. 5 lakhs and issued a cheque, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The accused contended that only Rs. 3 lakhs were borrowed and repaid, and the cheque was issued as security. The courts found the complainant's evidence satisfactory, including the promissory note (Ex-P1) and the cheque (Ex-P2). The accused's reliance on a diary entry (Ex-D1) indicating a lesser amount due was rejected, as it was related to different transactions. The High Court also verified the complainant's Income-tax Returns, which reflected the loan transaction. 2. Legality of Awarding a Sentence in Default of Payment of Compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The legal question was whether the court could award a sentence in default of payment of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code. The Supreme Court affirmed that the power to award compensation under Section 357(3) is intended to provide immediate relief to the victim and is not ancillary to other sentences. It is meant to reassure the victim within the criminal justice system and can be enforced by imposing a default sentence. The Court referred to several precedents, including Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. and Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan, which supported the imposition of a default sentence for non-payment of compensation. Sections 421 and 431 of the Code, which deal with the recovery of fines and other monetary orders, were also considered. The Court concluded that compensation under Section 357(3) should be treated similarly to fines for recovery purposes, and a default sentence could be imposed. The Supreme Court found no illegality in the Magistrate's order, which included a default sentence for non-payment of compensation, and held that the High Court erred in setting aside this part of the sentence. Consequently, the appeal by the accused was dismissed, and the appeal by the complainant was allowed, restoring the default sentence of two months of simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of Rs. 5 lakhs compensation. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and confirmed the legality of awarding a default sentence for non-payment of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court's order setting aside the default sentence was quashed, and the original order of the Magistrate was restored, granting the accused two months to pay the compensation.
|
