The petitioner who stands convicted and sentenced under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC has come up before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was sentenced by the trial court, and it was confirmed in appeal by the appellate court. In revision this Court modified the sentence while confirming the conviction. Accordingly, the minimum sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court was imposed, and the petitioner was directed to pay a total compensation of ₹38,000/- to the different persons who sustained injuries in the alleged incident. Sentence was thus modified by this court as per Annexure A judgment. This Court has observed that liability to pay compensation will not stand in any manner wiped off and the accused will have to make payment of compensation, if claimed by the injured persons. This Court also observed that if the witnesses (injured persons) do not intend to realise the compensation, the accused can approach the learned Magistrate to have the distress warrant re-
Crl.M.C No.370 of 2013 2 called. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the trial court with Crl.M.P No.6688/2012. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application on 18.10.2012 on the ground that the injured persons directly did not come forward to report before the court that they do not want compensation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order.
2. On a perusal of the entire case records, and on hearing both sides, I feel that the matter can be re-considered by the learned Magistrate. Notice can be issued to the injured persons from the trial court, and if direct service is not found possible for any reason, affidavit can be accepted by the learned Magistrate. If the learned Magistrate is somehow satisfied that any or all of the injured persons, will not claim compensation, though ordered by this Court, the learned Magistrate can act accordingly, and re-call the distress warrant issued for realisation of the compensation. This Court cannot grant such relief at this stage because the matter requires to be dealt with and decided by the trial court itself. This Court hopes that the learned Magistrate will make a practical approach in the matter, and take a final decision, positively if the injured persons are not interested in getting compensation, and if that fact is proved by Crl.M.C No.370 of 2013 3 affidavit or others.
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.10.2012 of the trial court in Crl.M.P No.6688/2012 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for re-consideration and decision as indicated above.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab