9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant was represented by a private counsel, like the accused. The State did not have any role at all in the prosecution of that case. The case ended in conviction. The revision petitioner/accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, and to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000 to the complainant under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A further direction was issued by the learned Magistrate under the same provision "to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000 to the Government, as the Government had also already incurred expenses in this complaint". This was challenged in appeal before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, in Crl. A. No. 213 of 2001. The appeal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced [as employed in section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.] take in only the injured person/the victim of the crime ? In the reference order, it is also observed as follows,- "10......Undoubtedly it is one of the primary and primordial duty of the State to prevent crimes and prosecute the offenders . A major chunk of the revenue of the State is spent in such prosecution of the offenders in order to achieve and ensure harmony in a crime free society. It is of course the duty of the State; but the State is forced to suffer expenses in such prosecution because the offender commits the crime. Merely because it is duty of the State to prosecute the offender ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenditure incurred by the State for administration of justice does not come either within sub-section (1) or within sub-section (3) of section 357 of the Code, to be compensated. 7. Even otherwise also, the case does not come under section 357(3) to order compensation to Government or the State. The Government or the State has not "suffered any loss or injury by reason of his act for which the accused person has been so sentenced". The act which became an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was the dishonour of a cheque issued by the revision petitioner to the respondent. If at all one had suffered any loss or injury on account of such act of the revision petitioner, it is the respondent and none else. The Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
