TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether Section 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies where compensation is awarded under Section 357(3); (ii) whether a deposit condition could be imposed as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal or only for suspension of sentence; and (iii) whether the compensation directed was reasonable.
Issue (i): whether Section 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies where compensation is awarded under Section 357(3).
Analysis: Section 357 makes a distinction between payment out of fine under sub-section (1) and compensation ordered independently under sub-section (3). The recovery provisions in Sections 421 and 431 indicate that compensation may be recovered as if it were fine, but the Court applied a purposive construction and treated sub-section (2) as addressing the timing of recovery in appealable cases. The victim's entitlement and the accused's right of appeal were harmonised by reading the provision to prevent immediate recovery during the appeal period.
Conclusion: Section 357(2) was held applicable even to compensation ordered under Section 357(3).
Issue (ii): whether a deposit condition could be imposed as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal or only for suspension of sentence.
Analysis: The right of appeal was treated as a vested and constitutional right and could not be burdened by an onerous condition for filing itself. At the same time, the appellate court retained power to impose reasonable terms while suspending the sentence. The Court held that conditions may be attached to suspension of sentence, but not so as to fetter the very maintainability or entertainment of the appeal.
Conclusion: A deposit could be directed only as a condition for suspension of sentence, not as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal.
Issue (iii): whether the compensation directed was reasonable.
Analysis: Compensation under Section 357(3) must be reasonable and fixed after regard to relevant factors, including the nature of the offence, the victim's loss, the accused's capacity to pay, and the overall statutory scheme. The Court held that an excessive amount could not be sustained, particularly where the trial court had imposed only a nominal fine on the company and the appellant's liability was vicarious. The amount had to be moderated to avoid oppressive consequences.
Conclusion: The compensation originally directed was held to be unreasonable, and the amount was reduced.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in part: the appellate court's power to impose a reasonable deposit condition for suspension of sentence was upheld, but the original compensation was found excessive and was scaled down, with the reduced amount made withdrawable by the respondent company.
Ratio Decidendi: Compensation awarded under Section 357(3) is subject to the appeal-protection in Section 357(2), and although courts may impose reasonable terms when suspending sentence, they cannot impose oppressive conditions that burden the constitutional right of appeal or fix compensation without regard to the accused's capacity to pay and the reasonableness of the award.
TaxTMI 
