Court emphasizes that compensation must utilize Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. when fine forms part of the sentence, rejecting reliance on Section 357(3).

ORDER:

Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor takes notice for the State.

2. Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 were found guilty for the offence U/s.447 r/w.34 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. Further, the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 found guilty for the offence U/s.427 r/w.34 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each. Further, A-1 to A-4 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) each to P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-5 owners of the site, within two months from the date of judgment, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months each.

03. He would further submit that the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 filed Crl.A.No.98/2024 on the file of IV Addl.Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, at Gajuwaka, challenging the judgment of the learned Magistrate. The petitioners/A-1 to A-4 filed Crl.M.P.No.326/2024 U/s.389(1) Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate.

04. The learned IV Addl.Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka, vide order dated 08.04.2024, which is now under challenge, allowed the petition, suspending the sentence of imprisonment, on the same terms and conditions imposed by the trial Court, but subject to payment of 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the Magistrate, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Others , 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776.

05. Learned counsel for petitioners would further submit that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal @ Colonel S.S.Deswal and others , [2019 (11) SCC 341] relied on by the learned Sessions Judge, relates to offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down certain principles relating to deposit of compensation amount with reference to section 148 of N.I.Act i.e., Power of Appellate Court to order payment against conviction U/s.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, application of the said judgment to the present petitioners is not correct, since the petitioners were convicted for the offence U/secs.447 and 427 IPC. Therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable in law.

06. Perusal of the record would show that the petitioners/A1 to A-4 were convicted for the offence U/secs.447 and 427 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. Further, the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 found guilty for the offence U/s.427 r/w.34 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each. Further, A-1 to A-4 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) each to P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-5 owners of the site, within two months from the date of judgment, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months each.

07. Admittedly, the petitioners/A1 to A-4 filed Crl.A.98/2024, challenging the judgment of the learned Magistrate. They also