The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Court has the jurisdiction to impose a default sentence of imprisonment in case of non-payment of compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., supported by the provisions of Section 431 Cr.P.C. and Section 64 IPC.

S.K.Awasthi, J.

1. The applicant has preferred this revision being aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.207/2016 affirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 16.03.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.12549/2014 convicting the applicant for an offence under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. to the complainant Smt. Kalpana Asure and further imprisonment for three months in case of default of payment of the compensation amount.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant questioned the judgment of the appellate Court solely on the ground that the Additional Sessions Judge has committed in law illegality by awarding the sentence of three months in case of default of payment of the compensation amount. According to him, if the applicant fails to deposit the compensation amount, the only mode available to the Court to recover any defaulted amount by way of compensation is to take recourse to the provisions of Section 421 Cr.P.C.

3. To the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order is based on legal sanctity which thus calls no interference.

4. Having considered the rival submissions, it appears from the perusal of the record that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior convicted the applicant for an offence under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment of conviction but modified the sentence and reduced it from one year till rising of the Court and to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

5. In the case of Hari Sing v. Sukhbir Singh & Others, reported in (1988) 4 SCC 551, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that since the imposition of compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. was on account of social concern, the Court could enforce the same by imposing sentence in default, particularly when no mode has been prescribed in the Code for recovery of sums awarded as compensation in the event, the same remained unpaid.

6. In the case of Sugnathi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdishan, (2002) 2 SCC 420, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :-

"When this Court pronounced in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh that a court may enforce an order to pay compensation "by imposing a sentence in default" it is open to all Courts in India to follow the said course. The said legal position would continue to hold good until it is overruled by a larger Bench of this Court."

7. In the context of provision of Section 357 of Cr.P.C., this Hon'ble Court in the case of Vijayan v. Sadanandan K. & Another, 2009 Cr.L.J. 2957, has observed in the following manner :-

19. In our view, the provision for grant of compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and the recovery thereof makes it necessary for the imposition of a default sentence as was held by this Court firstly in Hari Singh's case (supra) and thereafter in Sugnathi Suresh Kumar's case (supra). In our view, the law has been correctly stated in the said two decisions. As we have mentioned hereinbefore, when the decision of this Court in Hari Singh's case (supra) was holding the field, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had wrongly relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Rajendran's case (supra). The power to impose a default sentence in case of non-payment of compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. has been duly recognised by this Court and the arguments advanced to the contrary on behalf of the Petitioner must, therefore, be rejected.

20. Section 357 Cr.P.C. bears the heading "Order To Pay Compensation". It includes in sub-Section (1) the powe