Compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC remains recoverable as a fine, while post-sentence warrant execution is impermissible.

A non-bailable warrant issued against an accused after he had already undergone the full substantive and default sentence was held without jurisdiction and illegal, so continued coercive execution for the same sentence was barred. Compensation ordered under Section 357(3) CrPC was treated as recoverable as if it were a fine under Section 431 read with Section 421, and the recovery process could proceed through distress warrant proceedings even without a formal application by the complainant or legal representatives. The court upheld the recovery action, subject to notice to the deceased complainant's legal representatives.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the accused after he had already undergone the full substantive and default sentence was lawful; (ii) Whether compensation ordered under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be recovered through distress warrant proceedings as if it were a fine, even without a formal application by the complainant or his legal representatives.

Issue (i): Whether the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the accused after he had already undergone the full substantive and default sentence was lawful.

Analysis: The accused had already suffered the sentence imposed in execution of the conviction, and the subsequent issuance of a non-bailable warrant to enforce sentence already served was impermissible. The later recovery steps could not justify continued coercive custody when the sentence had been fully undergone.

Conclusion: The non-bailable warrant was without jurisdiction and illegal, and future issuance of such warrant against the accused for execution of the same sentence was barred.

Issue (ii): Whether compensation ordered under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be recovered through distress warrant proceedings as if it were a fine, even without a formal application by the complainant or his legal representatives.

Analysis: Compensation ordered under Section 357(3) is recoverable as if it were a fine by virtue of Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the recovery mechanism under Section 421 applies. The legal fiction extends the recovery machinery to compensation even after default imprisonment has been undergone. The absence of a formal application by the complainant or legal representatives does not denude the court of power to proceed with recovery. The recovery action was also taken within the permissible time contemplated by Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion: The trial court had jurisdiction and competence to proceed with the distress warrant proceedings for recovery of the unpaid compensation.

Final Conclusion: The accused obtained relief against coercive execution by non-bailable warrant, but the recovery of unpaid compensation through distress warrant was upheld and directed to continue with appropriate notice to the legal representatives of the deceased complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: Compensation ordered under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is recoverable as if it were a fine through the statutory recovery machinery, and such recovery is not defeated by the accused having undergone default imprisonment or by the absence of a formal recovery application by the complainant.

---