ASHA JAYAWANT MORE Vs. SWATI SANJAY REVANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the petitioner's counsel and also respondent's counsel.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner who is the accused before the Court below invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. prayed this Court to setaside the conditional order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Criminal Appeal No.196/2018 while suspending the sentence passed in CC No.502/2017 before the VI JMFC, Belagavi dated 12.04.2018, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount of Rs.25,50,000/-.

(3.) The main ground urged in this petition is that Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. says that when a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing the judgment or 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 any loss or injury by reason of the act for which accused person has been so sentenced. Admittedly, the trial Court has not imposed a sentence of imprisonment, but it has sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-. The fine imposed by the Court does not form part of sentence, when fine does not form part of sentence, the trial Court is not justified in directing the petitioner to pay Rs.25,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. When the trial Court is not justified in awarding the compensation, the first appellate Court is not justified in passing the conditional order of suspension of sentence directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within one month. The complainant has not proved that she has paid an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to the petitioner and she has also not proved that she had Rs.25,00,000/- during the period from 2010 to 2012. She has further not proved the fact that, she deposited the money in the said Stri Shakti Dainika Saptahik Varshik Fund unless the accused proves the fact of deposit of the money, presumption provided under Section 139 of NI Act, cannot be drawn in favour of the respondent/complainant and prayed this Court to set-aside the conditional order passed by the first appellate Court directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount.