Ex parte dismissal and compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC were unsustainable on the appellate record.

An ex parte dismissal of an appeal was unsustainable where the appellate record showed the petitioner's regular and the delay was attributable to the co-accused's absence; the incorrect next-date entry was supported by the material on record, so the dismissal was liable to be set aside. An order directing cost or compensation could not be justified under Section 357(3) CrPC because compensation is confined to cases where the court imposes a sentence not including fine and only for loss or injury caused by the offence; the impugned direction therefore had no legal basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the ex parte dismissal of the appeal was unsustainable on the facts recorded in the appellate court file; (ii) whether the order directing payment of cost or compensation to the accused could be sustained under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): whether the ex parte dismissal of the appeal was unsustainable on the facts recorded in the appellate court file.

Analysis: The record showed that the petitioner had been present on almost all dates of hearing and that the delays were attributable to the co-accused's non-appearance. The finding that both accused had delayed the appeal and absconded was inconsistent with the order sheets. The explanation that the petitioner had noted an incorrect next date of hearing was supported by the material placed before the Court.

Conclusion: The ex parte dismissal of the appeal could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): whether the order directing payment of cost or compensation to the accused could be sustained under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 357(3) permits compensation only when the court imposes a sentence of which fine does not form a part, and only to a person who has suffered loss or injury by reason of the offence. The provision did not justify the imposition of cost or compensation in the manner ordered by the trial court. The impugned direction was therefore without legal basis.

Conclusion: The order imposing cost or compensation was illegal and could not be maintained.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, and the appellate order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate order passed ex parte on a record inconsistent with the finding of default cannot stand, and compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is permissible only within the strict conditions prescribed by that provision.

---