ANIL KUMAR Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner claiming compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that his father was murdered by respondents No. 1 and 2 on the intervening night of 13/14 January, 1993. Both the respondents herein were convicted by the court of Sessions Judge, Ferozepur on 27.10.1995 for life and with fine. The appeal preferred by respondents No. 1 and 2 before this Court was dismissed on 29.04.2002. Although the conviction and sentence were upheld by this Court, meaning thereby life imprisonment and fine, however, no compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was granted to him. He, therefore, prays that since he was a minor at that time and now he has attained the age of majority, he must be granted compensation exercising the powers under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further contends that the relief of compensation is separate from sentence and fine, which could include fine.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under :

(3.) FOR reaching this conclusion, I am supported by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in M.R. Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2007(1) RCR(Criminal) 868 : 2007(1) RAJ 612. This was a case where the petitioner had preferred a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein that he was convicted and sentenced in two separate trials for different offence by separate courts. However, provision of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not invoked by the trial court or the appellate court and, therefore, the sentences were not ordered to run concurrently. It was thus prayed that in the light of the provisions of Section 427 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court must order the running of sentences concurrently. This contention of the petitioner was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the following observations are reproduced herein below :