JULLY REYNOLD Vs. MANUAL
LAWS(KER)-2003-7-45
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on July 04,2003

JULLY REYNOLD Appellant
VERSUS
MANUAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This revision petition has come up before us based on a reference order dated 18.6.2003 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
(2.) The revision petitioner was the accused in C.C. No. 510/99 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kochi. That case arose on a private complaint by the respondent under S.138 of the Negotiable 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 S.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. 2000/- 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 dismissed confirming the order of the Magistrate. It is in the above circumstances, this Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.
(3.) The main contention urged in this revision is that the learned Magistrate did not have any jurisdiction to direct compensation to be paid to Government under S.357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Compensation under the said provision can be directed to be paid only to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced. The State or the Government had not, by reason of the act of the revision petitioner relating to the cheque which formed the subject matter of the criminal case, suffered any loss or injury. So, the learned Magistrate ought not have directed payment of compensation to Government. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also did not appreciate this aspect properly, while confirming the order of the Magistrate, it is submitted.;


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