Section 357(3) compensation is unavailable when a fine is already imposed; conviction under cheque dishonour law may still stand.

Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be invoked where the sentence already includes a fine; compensation under that provision is confined to cases where fine is not part of the sentence. In cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the conviction may be sustained where the cheque signature is admitted, statutory notice is received, no reply is given, and the defence of discharge is not proved. The sentencing structure may still be adjusted so that the amount recovered is released to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a court can impose a sentence of fine and also direct payment of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be upheld while the sentence is modified.

Issue (i): Whether a court can impose a sentence of fine and also direct payment of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Analysis: Section 357(3) applies only when the sentence imposed does not include fine. Where fine forms part of the sentence, the power under Section 357(3) is not available. The court may instead impose a substantive sentence without fine and then direct compensation. The appellate court had combined fine and compensation in a manner inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The direction for compensation under Section 357(3) could not stand along with the sentence of fine.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be upheld while the sentence is modified.

Analysis: The cheque signature was admitted, statutory notice was received, no reply was given, and the defence of discharge was not proved. The concurrent findings establishing the offence were therefore sustained. At the same time, the court found no compelling reason to maintain a deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment and considered a modified sentence of fine sufficient, with the amount to be released to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld, but the sentence was modified by substituting a fine and directing release of the realised amount to the complainant under Section 357(1).

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of correcting the sentencing structure, while the finding of guilt remained intact and the complainant's compensation was preserved through the revised fine.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be invoked where the sentence already includes fine.

---