(1.) Are the criminal Courts Jurisdictionaly competent to impose a sentence of imprisonment in default of a direction to pay compensation under S. 357(3), Cr. P.C. What is the correct law on the point Is the law declared in Harikrishnan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh, (AIR 1988 SC 2127) reiterated unambiguously in Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan, (AIR 2002 SC 681), in any way altered by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Ettappadan Ahammedkutty alias Kunhappu v. E. P. Abdullakoya alias Kunhi Bappu, 2008 (1) KLT 851 (SC) Will it now be lawful for the Magistrates to impose such a default sentence
(2.) The question appears to be a vexing one and it appears that there is absolute confusion in the subordinate judiciary about the correct law that ought to be followed. I deem it my duty to help the subordinate judiciary to ascertain the law with clarity. Such confusion cannot be permitted to continue. The question came up for consideration in many cases and all counsel who wanted to advance arguments were permitted to advance such arguments before me in this case on that aspect. All of them have been heard and permitted to assist this Court. Two young counsel of this Court, Sri Jawahar Jose and Sri. C. V. Manu Vilsan were also requested to look up the matter in detail and assist the Court as amicus curiae. They have certainly done justice to the assignment given to them by this Court and I place on record my appreciation for the work done by them.
(3.) There can be no doubt whatsoever that a direction for payment of compensation to the victim can be issued by a Magistrate under Section 357(3), Cr. P.C. It is also well settled by now that such a direction can be issued for payment of amounts beyond the maximum fine which a Magistrate can impose under Section 29 of the Cr. P.C. The last trace of doubt, if any, on this aspect is laid to rest by the decision in Bhaskaran v. Balan, 1999 (3) KLT 440 (SC). The Supreme Court observes so in paragraphs 30 and 31 of the said decision.