SIVASURIYAN Vs. THANGAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) THE accused is in appeal against the impugned order of the High Court in exercising revisional power at the behest of the complainant. On the basis of a complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Magistrate took cognizance, issued process and finally disposed of the matter holding the accused guilty and convicting him thereunder. For such conviction, the Magistrate sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000. Against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the accused moved in appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction, but modified the sentence. The Additional Sessions Judge directed that the sentence should be till rising of court, but the fine amount already directed was affirmed. Against this order of the Additional Sessions Judge, the complainant moved in revision. The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment while affirming the sentence imposed by the appellate court, further directed that the accused should pay a compensation of Rs. one lakh under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is this direction to pay compensation which is being questioned in this appeal.

(3.) IN view of the submissions made, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the court can direct payment of compensation in exercise of power under sub-section (3) of Section 357 in a case where fine already forms a part of the sentence. Apart from sub-section (3) of Section 357 there is no other provision under the Code whereunder the court can exercise such power :