S KANNAN Vs. D V PADMAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the order passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad in Crl. M.P. No. 559 of 1996 in C.C. No. 251 of 1993 is legal and tenable is the question raised in this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') ?

(2.) The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No. 251 of 1993 which is pending on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad. One D. V. Padmaja, who is respondent No. 1 here, is the defacto-complainant. The petitioner is charged for the offence under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C.'). After framing of the charges, the petitioner was facing trial. Several witnesses on behalf of the prosecution were examined and when the case was fixed for arguments, the defacto-complainant filed an application for grant of interim compensation under Section 357, Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, before the delivery of judgment, considered the said application and granted interim compensation to respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 1,000.00 p.m. by an order dated 16-5-1996.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that Section 357 of Cr.P.C. does not empower the trial Court to award compensation before the delivery of judgment and before holding the accused guilty of the charges. The learned Public Prosecutor was unable to justify the order passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge.