SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 3527

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
MANOJ KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR – Respondent
/3806/2016



A court cannot order compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. when a fine has already been imposed.

Headnote:

COMPENSATION - SECTION 357(3) CR.P.C. - FINE - SECTION 143 NI ACT - [AFTER AWARDING SENTENCE OF FINE, COURT CANNOT PASS ORDER DIRECTING ACCUSED TO PAY COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 357(3) CR.P.C. HOWEVER, IN CASE WHERE COURT HAS NOT IMPOSED FINE, IT CAN ORDER ACCUSED TO PAY COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 357(3) CR.P.C.]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque and was sentenced to one year imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000. The complainant filed a revision petition seeking enhancement of sentence, and the Additional Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to pay ₹2,00,000 as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the court could not order compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. since a fine had already been imposed.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., compensation can only be awarded when fine does not form part of the sentence. However, in this case, the petitioner was sentenced to both imprisonment and fine. Therefore, the court could not have ordered compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.

Issues: Whether the court can order compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. when a fine has already been imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in State of Punjab Versus Gurmej Singh and R. Vijayan Versus Baby to hold that compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be awarded when a fine has been imposed.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition but modified the sentence imposed by the trial court by deeming the fine to be enhanced to ₹2,05,000, out of which ₹5,000 had already been paid, and the remaining amount was to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

CRR No. 3806 of 2016 (O&M)

Date of Decision:09.01.2023

Manoj Kumar

.....Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab and another

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:-

Mr. Himanshu Puri, Advocate for Mr. Sunny K. Singla,

Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R.S. Khaira, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Gagandeep Singh,

Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

CRM-32584-2016

This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for

condoning the delay of 372 days in filing the present revision.

Heard.

Considering the grounds mentioned in the application supported

by the affidavit of the petitioner Manoj, the application is allowed. Delay of

372 days in filing the revision is condoned.

CRR-3806-2016

This revision is directed against order dated 02.07.2015 passed

by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby petitioner-accused

has been directed to pay compensation of 2,00,000/- under Section 357(3)

of the Cr.P.C. to respondent No.2-complainant; and in default of payment of

the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 months.

2.

On perusal of the paper-book, it is revealed that cheque dated

14.06.2011 for an amount of 10,30,940/- issued by the petitioner-accused

NEETIKA TUTEJA

2023.01.11 05:07

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

CRR-3806-2016 (O&M)

Manoj Kumar in favour of complainant-respondent No.2 Rajiv Kumar Jain, was

dishonoured due to 'insufficient funds' in the account of the accused. After making

compliance of the statutory requirements, complaint was filed, in which after

holding necessary trial, conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act of the accused-petitioner was recorded by learned Trial Court on

14.07.2014. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of one year and to pay fine of 5,000/- for committing the said offence.

3.

Against the above-said conviction & sentence, petitioner-accused

filed appeal seeking acquittal; whereas complainant-respondent No.2 filed

revision for enhancement of sentence.

4.

Learned Additional Session Judge, Sangrur, though dismissed the

appeal of the accused-petitioner but partly accepted the revision for enhancement

of sentence on 02.07.2015. Vide this order, petitioner was directed to pay an

amount of 2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant-respondent No.2 and

in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period

of four months.

5.

It is the above-said order, which is assailed by the accused-petitioner

by way of present revision. It is submitted that as per the settled proposition of

law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Vijayan V.Baby & Anr.

2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 743, after awarding sentence of fine, the Court cannot

pass order, directing the accused to pay compensation under Section 357(3)

Cr.P.C. As in the present case, learned JMIC, Malerkotla vide judgment dated

14.07.2014 had already imposed a fine of 5000/-, so in such circumstances

learned Additional Session Judge could not order payment of compensation of

2,00,000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and so, the impugned order is illegal,

Page No. 2 out of 8 pages

NEETIKA TUTEJA

2023.01.11 05:07

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

CRR-3806-2016 (O&M)

arbitrary and perverse. It is also submitted that petitioner has already completed

his sentence. Besides, complainant-respondent No.2 has already filed civil suit for

recovery of 14,02,118/-, which has been dismissed by the trial Court on

08.07.2016. With these submissions, prayer is made to set aside the impugned

order.

6.

Refuting the aforesaid contentions, it is submitted by learned counsel

for the complainant-respondent No.2 that learned Additional Sessions Judge has

rightly relied upon Ajay Bansal V. Smt. Nirmal Jain, (P&H) : Law Finder Doc

Id # 113957 to grant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top