(1.) This Crl. Revision Petition is directed challenging the confirmed judgment of the Sessions Judge, Thalassery delivered in Crl.A.No. 112 of 1996. The first revision petitioner was found guilty under S.417 read with S.34 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and also found guilty under S.312 read with 109 IPC and thereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months, [n addition to the above sentences, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the victim lady. Vilasini, first respondent herein, under the provisions of S.357(3) CPC and in case of default in payment of the compensation, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The second accused second petitioner who is the sister of the first petitioner first accused was released under S.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In the Appeal, the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence and also affirmed the payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in to.
(2.) While taking this revision on file, this Court suspended the sentence of the Sessions Judge and also stayed his finding as to the payment of the compensation for one month. Thereafter, the stay was not extended.
(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Shaji, appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that already the first revision petitioner had undergone the substantial sentence of imprisonment awarded under S.417 read with 34 IPC and 312 read with 109 IPC. Even after the expiry of the terms of imprisonment he has not yet been released by the jail authorities on the ground that he has to still undergo imprisonment for a period of one year as per the default clause in the payment of compensation. Such a retention by the jail authority after the expiry of the substantial sentence of imprisonment is erroneous. For, the compensation was awarded under S.357(3) Cr.P.C. where there is no rider for imprisonment in case of default in the payment of compensation. S.357(3) Cr.P.C. reads as follows: