- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sivasuriyan v. Thangavelu .
Factual and Procedural Background
The accused challenged an order of the High Court passed in revision at the instance of the complainant. The underlying proceedings arose from a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Magistrate took cognizance, issued process, and ultimately convicted the accused, sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5000.
On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court, while affirming the fine. The complainant then filed a revision. In revisional jurisdiction, the High Court affirmed the appellate sentence and additionally directed the accused to pay compensation of Rs one lakh under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The present appeal questioned only this compensation direction.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a court can direct payment of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when a fine already forms part of the sentence.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Section 357(3) CrPC can be exercised only where the sentence imposed does not include a fine; since fine had already been imposed, the High Court could not award compensation under Section 357(3).
Respondent Complainant's Arguments
- Considering the nature of the accusation and the facts and circumstances, the High Court was justified in examining the sufficiency of the sentence and directing payment of compensation.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court treated the dispute as turning solely on the interpretation of Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It noted that, apart from Section 357(3), there was no other provision under the Code under which the court could exercise the specific power invoked to order compensation in the manner done by the High Court.
On a plain reading of Section 357(3), the court held that the statutory precondition for exercising the power is that the court must have imposed a sentence in which fine does not form a part. The provision expressly contemplates compensation only when the sentence is one “of which fine does not form a part.”
Applying that condition to the facts, the court observed that the accused had been sentenced both to imprisonment and to a fine (Rs 5000). Because fine formed part of the sentence, the court concluded that Section 357(3) could not be invoked to impose an additional compensation obligation. Consequently, the High Court's direction awarding Rs one lakh as compensation under Section 357(3) was held to be impermissible.
Holding and Implications
SET ASIDE (IN PART): The direction of the High Court requiring the appellant to pay compensation of Rs one lakh under Section 357 CrPC was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The direct effect is that the accused is relieved from the High Court-imposed compensation liability under Section 357(3). The opinion does not discuss broader implications beyond this result and does not indicate that any new precedent was set.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The accused is in appeal against the impugned order of the High Court in exercising revisional power at the behest of the complainant. On the basis of a complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Magistrate took cognizance, issued process and finally disposed of the matter holding the accused guilty and convicting him thereunder. For such conviction, the Magistrate sentenced him to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5000. Against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the accused moved in appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction, but modified the sentence. The Additional Sessions Judge directed that the sentence should be till rising of court, but the fine amount already directed was affirmed. Against this order of the Additional Sessions Judge, the complainant moved in revision. The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment while affirming the sentence imposed by the appellate court, further directed that the accused should pay a compensation of Rsone lakh under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is this direction to pay compensation which is being questioned in this appeal.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that power under sub-section (3) of Section 357 of the Code can be exercised in a case where fine does not form a part of a sentence which is imposed and in the case in hand fine already having been imposed, the court's power under sub-section (3) of Section 357 could not have been exercised. The learned counsel for the respondent complainant, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the nature of accusation in question in the facts and circumstances, the Court was justified in entering into the sufficiency of the sentence and directing award of compensation.
4. In view of the submissions made, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the court can direct payment of compensation in exercise of power under sub-section (3) of Section 357 in a case where fine already forms a part of the sentence. Apart from sub-section (3) of Section 357 there is no other provision under the Code whereunder the court can exercise such power:
“357. (3) When a court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order of the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced.”
5. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that the power can be exercised only when the court imposes sentence by which fine does not form a part. In the case in hand, a court having sentenced to imprisonment, as also fine, the power under sub-section (3) of Section 357 could not have been exercised. In that view of the matter, the impugned direction of the High Court directing payment of compensation to the tune of Rsone lakh by the appellant is set aside.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Alert