This revision petition is filed challenging the conviction entered and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C.No.164/98 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.185/2001, on the files of Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He is also directed to pay compensation to the complainant, a sum of Rs.40,000/- under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. The legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence are under challenge in this revision petition. 2. Though this revision petition has been filed, challenging both conviction and sentence. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner mainly focused on the illegality in the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that, in addition to the fine amount the petitioner was directed to pay an amount more than the fine amount to the 1st respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. According to him the direction to pay an amount higher than the fine amount as compensation, in addition to fine amount, is illegal and impermissible.
3. In view of the submissions, I have considered the legality of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. According to Section 357(1), when a court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence of which fines forms a part, the court may when passing the judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied as compensation to the complainant. Similarly Section 357(3) says that, when a court imposes a sentence of which fine doesn't form a part, the court may when passing the 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 in loss or injury, by reason of the act for which the accused person has been sought sentenced. When both sections are placed in juxtaposition, it is very clear that when fine forms a part of the sentence, that fine amount or part of the fine amount only can be given as compensation. Needless to say no amount higher than the fine amount can be given as compensation. But under Section 357(3) where fine doesn't form a part of the sentence, any amount can be awarded to the person who suffered loss as compensation.
4. Coming to the instant case, the court below concurrently failed to appreciate the law in its correct perspective. The trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in addition to that, directed him to pay a compensation to the 1st respondent/complainant a sum of Rs.40,000/- under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. When a fine of Rs.5,000/- was awarded, no amount more than Rs.5,000/- could have been awarded as compensation. But in the instant case, an additional amount of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded as compensation. Thus the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is illegal and liable to be set aside.
5. Therefore, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner will stand modified as follows. The revision petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- within a period of two months from today, and same shall be given to the 1st respondent as compensation under 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. In default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
Sd/-
K.HARILAL, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE VS