TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Allowed: Compensation Directive Set Aside for Lack of Hearing Opportunity; Case Remitted for Further Proceedings.</h1> <h3>Mangilal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh</h3> Mangilal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh - 2004 AIR 1280, 2004 (1) SCR 1, 2004 (2) SCC 447, 2004 (1) JT 81, 2004 (1) SCALE 42 Issues Involved:1. Scope and ambit of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Requirement of hearing the accused before awarding compensation u/s 357(3) and (4) of the Code.Summary:Scope and Ambit of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:The appellant faced trial for offences u/s 452, 148, 323 read with Section 149, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant and others for various offences but did not impose any fine. The High Court, however, directed the payment of compensation u/s 357(3) and (4) of the Code, without imposing a fine. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Section 357, noting that sub-section (1) applies when a fine is imposed, while sub-section (3) applies even when no fine is imposed. The Court emphasized that the power to award compensation is not ancillary but in addition to other sentences.Requirement of Hearing the Accused Before Awarding Compensation:The appellant argued that the High Court violated principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity to be heard before fixing the quantum of compensation. The State contended that Section 357 does not mandate a hearing before awarding compensation. The Supreme Court held that principles of natural justice must be read into the statute unless explicitly excluded. The Court concluded that an opportunity must be granted to the accused before directing payment of compensation u/s 357(4) of the Code. The expression 'may' in the statute indicates a discretionary power, not an obligatory one.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's direction for payment of compensation by the accused-appellant and remitted the matter back to the High Court to grant an opportunity to the accused-appellant for a hearing on the issue of compensation. The adjudication will be limited to the appellant's liability, as others have already paid their respective amounts. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated.
TaxTMI 