S HANEEF Vs. M SHAFATH ALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision have come up before us on a reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court for consideration on the issue as to : "Whether a trial Court awards compensation, while imposing a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, in purported exercise of powers under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., is such compensation amount not liable to be paid either before the period allowed for presenting an appeal has elapsed or when an appeal is presented, before the decision in the appeal; and whether the appellate Court before whom an appeal is presented by the accused has discretion in the matter of modulating the grant of an interlocutory order (of suspension and grant of bail) by imposing conditions as to how payment of compensation shall be made pending decision in the appeal".

(2.) Briefly stating the facts on the backdrop are that the revision petitioner is the accused who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') by the learned XV- Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and sentenced to a term of imprisonment and further, awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) in each of these cases in favour of the de facto-complainant. It is to be noticed that no fine was however imposed. Aggrieved thereby, the accused preferred regular appeals against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court wherein the appellate Court pending disposal thereof, granted stay in regard to the compensation subject to condition that the petitioner/accused deposits a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) as awarded by the Court below in each case. Challenging the same, the petitioner/accused filed these two revisions, inter alia, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in V. Prasada Rao v. State of A.P., 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 566 (AP) = 2001 (2) ALT (Crl.) 348 (AP), contending that having regard to the provision under sub-section (2) of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C.'), there is no need for payment of any amount and therefore imposition of such condition is wholly beyond the powers conferred thereunder. The learned Single Judge by taking into consideration the submissions made on either side and especially having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Stannp Felix Pinto v. Jangid Builders Private Limited and another, 2001 (2) ALD 96 (SC), observed that there is a distinction in regard to the amounts to be awarded both either of the provisions in sub-section (2) or subsection (3) of Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. and therefore, it is perhaps possible to take a different view other than the one expressed by the Single Judge of this Court. Hence, referred these revisions to this Court on the aforesaid aspect.

(3.) Heard Sri C. Praveen Kumar, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.