<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (7) TMI 571 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109620</link>
    <description>Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits compensation only to a person who has suffered loss or injury from the offence. In a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the State did not prosecute the case or incur prosecution expense, the Government cannot be treated as the victim entitled to compensation for cheque dishonour. The provision is intended to compensate the real victim, and general State expenditure on justice administration does not satisfy that requirement. A direction to pay compensation to the Government under Section 357(3) was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:55:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146637" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 571 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109620</link>
      <description>Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits compensation only to a person who has suffered loss or injury from the offence. In a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the State did not prosecute the case or incur prosecution expense, the Government cannot be treated as the victim entitled to compensation for cheque dishonour. The provision is intended to compensate the real victim, and general State expenditure on justice administration does not satisfy that requirement. A direction to pay compensation to the Government under Section 357(3) was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>