9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Class, Dhamtari, in Criminal Case No. 225/2009, whereby whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class after holding the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') sentenced them undergo S.I. for three months and fine of ₹ 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for thirty days. It has also been objected by non-applicant Satish Chandrakar (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant'). In appeal the Additional Sessions Judge has modified the sentence of S.I. for three months to sentence of till rising of the Court, but fine part of sentence has been maintained. The appellate Court has also awarded compensation of ₹ 5 lacs i.e. amount of cheque and also directed to undergo S.I. for six months if amount of compensation is not paid within two months from the order. The accused have challenged the conviction and payment of compensation on the ground that cheque issued was not for debt or dues legally recoverable, but was security of amount and on the ground that the Court below was not competent to award compensation beyond the extent of sentence of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th sub-section (1) of Section 357 of the Code, but when fine does not form a part of sentence imposed, then the Court may award compensation in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 357 of the Code. In the present case both the Courts below have imposed fine of ₹ 5000/- which the accused have already paid, therefore, compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code cannot be awarded to the complainant, but only to the extent of fine i.e. ₹ 5000/- may be awarded in accordance with Section 357(1) of the Code, therefore, while awarding independent compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code, the appellate Court has committed illegality, which is required to be quashed. Learned counsel also argued that in accordance with the provisions of Section 357(3) or 357 of the Code, the Court is not competent to direct the sentence for default of payment of compensation in absence of such provision, but the appellate Court has also awarded sentence in default of payment of compensation and thereby committed illegality. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance in the matter of Shri Taher N. Khambati v. M/s. Vinayak Enterprises, Secunderabad and others 1 in which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w have not committed illegality. I do not find any illegality in reducing the sentence of imprisonment by the appellate Court while exercising the appellate jurisdiction. 12. As regards the question of imposing sentence and award of compensation, the Courts are empowered to impose the sentence of fine and if sentence of fine is imposed, then part of whole amount of fine may be awarded as compensation to the complainant in accordance with Section 357(1) of the Code. 13. As regards the question of imposing sentence of imprisonment for default in payment of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code, although the Court does not specifically provide such provisions, but while dealing with the same question the Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Kishan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh and others 3 has held that reasonable amount of compensation by way of the compensation to victims of offence, may be awarded and the Courts are required to exercise his power liberally, so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way. The Supreme Court has further held that the Court may interfere the order by imposing sentence in default. The Supreme Court has observed in paras 10 and 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk it may not be safe to award death sentence. Learned counsel for the State, however, invited our attention that P.W. 2 is left without any support with a family to be maintained. Therefore it is a fit case where this Court should award compensation to her. We are also of the view that this is very much necessary. Section 357(3), Cr.P.C., provides for ordering of payment by way of compensation to the victim by the accused. It is an important provisions and it must also be noted that power to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto.... 12. For the reasons stated above, we confirm the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C., but reduced the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. We further direct that the appellant Balraj shall pay ₹ 10,000/- by way of compensation to P.W. 2 Smt. Laxmi Devi and if the appellant fails to pay this amount within three months from today, the same may be collected as provided under Section 431, Cr.P.C., and be paid to PW 2. The conviction and sentence of seven years R.I. under Section 307, I.P.C., are, however, confirmed. The sentence shall run concurrently. The order of the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me amount as has been laid down by the cases above, otherwise the very purpose of granting an order of compensation would stand defeated. The Supreme Court has observed in para 27 thus:- 27. From the above line of cases, it becomes very clear, that, a sentence of imprisonment can be granted for default in payment of compensation awarded under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. The whole purpose of the provision is to accommodate the interests of the victims in the criminal justice system. Sometimes the situation becomes such that there is no purpose served by keeping a person behind bars. Instead directing the accused to pay an amount of compensation to the victim or affected party can unsure delivery of total justice. Therefore, this grant of compensation is sometimes in lieu of sending a person behind bars or in addition to a very light sentence of imprisonment. Hence on default of payment of this compensation, there must be a just recourse. Not imposing a sentence of imprisonment would mean allowing the accused to get away without paying the compensation and imposing another fine would be impractical as it would mean imposing a fine upon another fine and therefore would not ensure pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
