2006 (6) TMI 528 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Power of the appeal court to direct payment of compensation as a condition for suspending the substantive sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Interpretation and application of Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) regarding compensation.
3. Validity of imposing conditions for suspending sentences during appeals.
4. The distinction between compensation and fine under the Negotiable Instruments Act and CrPC.

Detailed Analysis:

Power of the Appeal Court to Direct Payment of Compensation:
The primary issue is whether the appeal court, upon presentation of an appeal against an order of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, can direct the payment of compensation awarded by the trial court as a condition for suspending the substantive sentence. The court held that the appeal court has sufficient power to impose such conditions. This is supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in Stanny Felix Pinto Vs. Jangid Builders Pvt Ltd, which advised that courts should impose conditions for payment of fines when suspending sentences in appeals under Section 138.

Interpretation and Application of Section 357 of CrPC:
Section 357 of the CrPC deals with the court's power to order compensation. Sub-section (1) allows the court to direct that a part of the fine be used to compensate the victim. Sub-section (2) states that if a fine is imposed, no payment shall be made before the appeal period has elapsed or before the appeal decision. Sub-section (3) allows the court to order compensation even when no fine is imposed. The court clarified that sub-section (2) does not automatically stay the payment of compensation awarded under sub-section (3) pending an appeal. The compensation under sub-section (3) is independent and can be ordered as a condition for suspending the sentence.

Validity of Imposing Conditions for Suspending Sentences:
The court emphasized that imposing conditions for suspending sentences is valid and necessary to ensure justice. The conditions must be reasonable and take into account the ability of the accused to pay. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh, which recommended liberal use of the power to award compensation to reassure victims that they are not forgotten in the criminal justice system.

Distinction Between Compensation and Fine:
The court noted that fines under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and those under Section 357(1) of the CrPC have different implications. Under Section 138, the fine can be up to twice the amount of the cheque, while under Section 357(1), it cannot exceed five thousand rupees. The automatic stay under Section 357(2) applies only to compensation from fines under sub-section (1) and not to compensation under sub-section (3). Therefore, the appeal court can direct payment of compensation under sub-section (3) as a condition for suspending the sentence.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appeal court acted within its powers in directing the payment of compensation as a condition for suspending the sentence. The conditions imposed were reasonable and necessary to ensure justice. The petitions and the criminal revision application were dismissed, and the rule was discharged. The court extended the time for payment by six weeks and denied further liberty to approach the Sessions Court for reduction of the amount.