SIVASURIYAN Vs. THANGAVELU
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-147
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 08,2002

Sivasuriyan Appellant
VERSUS
THANGAVELU Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

B.B. SINGHAL VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(P&H)-2006-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
S. SURESH VS. M.C. SUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2008-6-606] [REFERRED TO]
CHACKO JOSEPH VS. T O JOSE [LAWS(GJH)-2011-7-141] [REFERRED TO]
SWATHI DRUG AGENCIES PVT LIMITED VS. RAMESH JAICHAND SHAH [LAWS(APH)-2008-6-12] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. VS. RAJNIGANDHA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-307] [REFERRED TO]
TULSI RAM MISHRA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
R VIJAYAN VS. BABY [LAWS(SC)-2011-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
PITTALA SUBRAMANYAM VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2007-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAKANT PARMANAND SHARMA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 [LAWS(GJH)-2015-6-134] [REFERRED]
SREE SUBHA JAYAM CHITS AND FINANCES VS. E JELL SUDHAKAR JABARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-396] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR GOEL VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-126] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKARLAL M PARMAR VS. DINESH BABULAL BORIYAWALA [LAWS(GJH)-2006-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
THANIKKUDAN BHAGWATI MILLS LTD., THANIKKUDAM AND ANOTHER VS. DAYA RAM BRIJ LAL JAIN AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2014-9-229] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH JAICHAND SHAH VS. SWATHI DRUG AGENCIES PVT LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-2008-6-91] [REFERRED TO]
CHAUDHARY POPATBHAI SHANKARBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-3-160] [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR J SUJAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-7-286] [REFERRED TO].]
PURAN SINGH VS. SURJIT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2014-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
DURAISWAMY VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-1-8] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (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 Rs. one lakh under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is this direction to pay compensation which is being questioned in this appeal.
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 a 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.

(3.)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 to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.