Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.357(2) – Appellant was tried for the offence punishable u/ss.420,467,468,471 r/w.120-B IPC – Trial Court convicted the appellant and awarded sentence with fine – Appellant filed appeal before the High Court and also filed application for suspension of sentence – High Court allowed the application for suspension of sentence, however, directed appellant to deposit the fine amount awarded before the Court below – Whether by virtue of s.357(2) Cr.P.C., the said fine which was part of sentence automatically was stayed till the decision of the appeal and would not have been directed by the High Court to be deposited by the appellant – Held: No infirmity in the order of the High Court – In instant case, s.357(2) Cr.P.C. not attracted since there was no direction of payment of any compensation out of the fine imposed by the trial court as part of sentence – s.357 Cr.P.C.(2) comes into play only where any order of payment of compensation utilising the fine imposed as sentence u/s.357(1) Cr.P.C. or compensation as directed u/s. 357(3) Cr.P.C. is made – Present being neither a case of s.357(1) Cr.P.C. nor s.357(3), sub-section(2) of s.357 Cr.P.C. clearly not applicable.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.357(2) – Purpose and object – Held: s.357(1) Cr.P.C. contemplated utilisation of fine imposed in certain circumstances as compensation to be paid to victim – Sub-s.(2) of s.357 engrafted an embargo that such payment shall not be made till the period allowed for appeal has elapsed or if the appeal is filed, till the same is decided – Legislature was conscious that compensation paid if utilised, there may not be appropriate measures to recover the said amount utilised from victim to whom the compensation is paid hence embargo in payment has been engrafted in sub-s.(2) – Thus at best sub-s.(2) of s.357 Cr.P.C. is a provision which defers or withholds the utilisation of the amount of compensation awarded till the limitation of appeal elapses or if filed till it is decided – The provision in no manner stays the sentence of fine during the pendency of the appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The fine is contemplated to be utilised for compensating different circumstances as enumerated in Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. sub-section (2) of Section
357 Cr.P.C. has been engrafted in reference to what was stated in sub-Section (1) of Section 357 Cr.P.C. Crucial words used in sub-section (2) of Section 357 Cr.P.C. are “no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or if an appeal be presented, before the decision of the appeal”. Thus, what is prohibited under Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. is that payment of compensation utilising the fine be not paid till the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or if an appeal is filed then before the decision of the appeal. It does not involve any concept of stay of sentence. [Para 14] [1041-C-D]
2. Section 357 Cr.P.C. contains an embargo that on passing a judgment of sentence of fine, the fine be not utilised for payment of compensation till contingency as mentioned therein does not occur. The sentence awarded by the Court including sentence of fine is in no way affected by embargo contained in Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. The operation of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. is restricted to payment of compensation as contemplated by Section 357(1) and
(3) Cr.P.C. The heading of the Section 357 Cr.P.C. i.e. “Order to pay compensation” as well as contents of the Section lead to only one conclusion that the entire provision has been engrafted regarding payment of compensation out of the fine imposed or when Court imposes sentence the fine is not part of which, the Court may by way of compensation direct payment of such amount to a person who has suffered the injury. Thus, Section 357 Cr.P.C. has nothing to do with suspension of sentence awarded by the trial court and the sentence of fine imposed on the accused is in no way affected by Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. The present is not a case where trial court has directed payment of any compensation to anyone out of fine imposed. There is no direction for payment of compensation in the order of the trial court nor present case is covered by the circumstances mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to
(d) of Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. Present is also not a case of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Hence, there is no question of applicability of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. The heading of Section 357 Cr. P.C. throws considerable light in finding the object and purpose of the Section. Section 357 Cr.P.C. is only attracted when Court orders for payment of compensation. Section 357 is not attracted in any other case. It is well settled that heading of the Section plays a role when there is any doubt in interpretation of the Section. [Para 15] [1041-F-H; 1042-A-C]
3. Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. contemplated utilisation of fine imposed in certain circumstances as compensation to be paid to victim. Sub-section (2) engrafted an embargo that such payment shall not be made till the period allowed for appeal has elapsed or if the appeal is filed, till the same is decided. Legislature was conscious that compensation paid if utilised, there may not be appropriate measures to recover the said amount utilised from victim to whom the compensation is paid hence embargo in payment has been engrafted in sub-section (2). Thus at best subsection (2) of Section 357 Cr.P.C. is a provision which defers or withholds the utilisation of the amount of compensation awarded till the limitation of appeal elapses or if filed till it is decided. The provision in no manner stays the sentence of fine during the pendency of the appeal. The purpose for which sub-section (2) of Section 357 Cr.P.C. has been enacted is different as noted above and it never contemplates as stay of sentence of fine imposed on accused. [Para 33] [1052-H; 1053-A-C]
4. Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. was not attracted in the present case since there was no direction of payment of any compensation out of the fine imposed by the trial court as part of sentence. Section 357 Cr.P.C.(2) comes into play only where any order of payment of compensation utilising the fine imposed as sentence under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. or compensation as directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. is made. Present being neither a case of Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. nor Section 357(3), sub-section(2) of Section 357 Cr.P.C. is clearly not applicable. [Para 37] [1054-A-B] Kedar Nath v. State of Haryana 2006 (3) PLR 194 – distinguished.
Bharat Mandal son of Sitaram Mandal & Ors. v. The State of Bihar, 2012 (2) PLJR 855; Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and Another (2007) 6 SCC
528 : [2007] 4 SCR 1122; K.C.Sareen v. C.B.I.
Chandigarh (2001) 6 SCC 584 : [ 2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 224 – inapplicable.
Stanny Felix Pinto v. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another, (2001) 2 SCC 416 : [2001] 1 SCR 390; Bhinka and others v. Charan Singh, AIR 1959 SC 960 : [1959] Suppl. SCR 798; N.C. Dhoundial v. Union of India and others, (2004) 2 SCC 579 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 674; Irrigation Engineering Company (India) Private Limited and Anr. v. The Small-Scale Industrial Development Bank of India (SIDBI) 2003 (6) KarLJ 387; Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and others (1988) 4 SCC 551 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 571 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.