TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 13(1)(c) & (d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court by order dated 24.01.2018 convicted the accused and awarded sentence. The appellant, who was one of the accused, was awarded the following sentence by the trial court: "44. Satyendra Kumar Mehra convicted for offence punishable U/s 120B/ 420, 120B/ 467, 120B/ 468 and 120B/ 471 IPC: U/s 120B/ 420 IPC R.I. of Five(05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120B/ 467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120B/ 468 IPC R.I. of Five(05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120B/ 471 IPC R.I. of Five(05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off." 3. Aggrieved against the above conviction and sentence order the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.176 of 2018 before the High Court. The appellant also filed application praying suspension of sentence. After hearing, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the High Court directed payment of rupees four lakhs as a condition to suspend the sentence which was part of the fine imposed as part of sentence. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that judgment of this Court in Stanny Felix Pinto(supra) cannot be pressed into service with regard to interpretation of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. which section is neither referred to nor adverted to by this Court in above case. 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. From the facts brought on record, it is clear that the sentence awarded to the appellant was a sentence of R.I. of five years with payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/and in default S.I. of three months. The said sentence was recorded in four cases and all sentences were to run concurrently. Thus, the fine was part of the sentence. The question which is to be answered in the present case is as to whether by virtue of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C., the said fine which was part of sentence automatically was stayed till the decision of the appeal and would not have been directed by the High Court to be deposited by the appellant. 11. For answering the question we need to reflect up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elapsed, or, if an appeal be presented, before the decision of the appeal. (3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced. (4) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision. (5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section." 13. All the circumstances in subsection (1) of Section 357 refer to direction to pay compensation out of the fine imposed. Thus, all the circumstances are circumstances where fine imposed and recovered is to be applied in the above circumstances. 14. The fine is thus contemplated to be utilised for compensating different circumstances as enumerated in Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. SubSection (2) of Section 357 Cr.P.C. has been engrafted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f compensation in the order of the trial court nor present case is covered by the circumstances mentioned in subclauses (a) to (d) of Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. Present is also not a case of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Hence, there is no question of applicability of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. The heading of Section 357 Cr. P.C. throws considerable light in finding the object and purpose of the Section. Section 357 Cr.P.C. is only attracted when Court orders for payment of compensation. Section 357 is not attracted in any other case. It is well settled that heading of the Section plays a role when there is any doubt in interpretation of the Section. This Court in Bhinka and others vs. Charan Singh, AIR 1959 SC 960, while examining the role of a heading of section while interpreting a section noticed the following principle; "15......Section 180 provides for the eviction of a person who but for the eviction would become a hereditary tenant by efflux of the prescribed time. If there is any ambiguity - we find none - it is dispelled by the heading given to the section and also the description of the nature of the suit given in the Schedule. The heading reads thus: "Ejectment of person occupyin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....victed for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Accused 2 is sentenced to suffer SI for 1 month. Accused 2 is also directed to pay compensation to the complainant, quantified (sic) at Rs. 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lakhs only), under Section 357(3) CrPC. Accused 2 is entitled to pay the amount of compensation in two equal monthly instalments of Rs. 7,50,000 each. The first instalment of Rs. 7,50,000 shall be paid on or before 2332006 and the second instalment of Rs. 7,50,000 shall be paid on or before 2442006; in default of payment of the amount of compensation Accused 2 shall suffer further SI for 2 months." 18. An appeal was preferred against the conviction order. The Appellate Court while admitting the appeal directed the accused to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakh each within four weeks from the said date. Writ petition was filed questioning the legality of the said order of the Appellate Court which was dismissed and thereafter the matter was taken to this Court. A submission was raised before this Court that having regard to the provisions of Section 357(2) of the Code, the impugned judgment is wholly unsustain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lisation of fine." 21. This Court in the aforesaid case has noted the distinction between fine of Rs. 25,000/which was imposed on the Company and compensation of Rs. 15 lakh which was directed to be paid by the Chairman of the Company. In paragraph 71 the aforesaid was mentioned to the following effect: "71. We are prima facie of the opinion (without going into the merit of the appeal) that the direction of the learned trial Judge appears to be somewhat unreasonable. The appellant herein has been sentenced to imprisonment. Only fine has been imposed on the Company. Thus, for all intent and purpose, the learned trial Judge has invoked both subsections (1) and (3) of Section 357 of the Code. The liability of the appellant herein was a vicarious one in terms of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The question may also have to be considered from the angle that the learned trial Judge thought it fit to impose a fine of Rs. 25,000 only upon the Company. If that be so, a question would arise as to whether an amount of compensation for a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs should have been directed to be paid by the Chairman of the Company. We feel that it is not." 22. This Court ultimately....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt has done it correctly and in the interest of justice. We feel that while suspending the sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act it is advisable that the court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount is heavy, the court can direct at least a portion thereof to be remitted as the convicted person wants the sentence to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. In this case the grievance of the appellant is that he is required by the High Court to remit a huge amount of rupees four lakhs as a condition to suspend the sentence. When considering the total amount of fine imposed by the trial court (twenty lakhs of rupees) there is nothing unjust or unconscionable in imposing such a condition. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. As such no notice need be issued to the respondent. Appeal is accordingly dismissed." 25. It is true that this Court while deciding the said case did not consider Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in his submission that the above judgment cannot be held to be laying down any ratio on applicability of Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be read with Section 389 of the Cr. P.C. In fact, neither the petitioners/appellants applied for, nor the Appellate Court ordered suspension of the sentence relating to compensation of Rs. 16 lakhs only. On the other hand, when the suspension of impugned sentence passed against them is seen with the power given to the Appellate Court under Section 389 of the Cr. P.C., besides the ambit or scope of Section 357 of the Cr. P.C., there will not be any difficulty in holding that there is no error of record or infirmity or irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court of Sessions suspending the sentence on condition of depositing 20% of the total fine amount imposed on them (petitioners). 10. In this view of the matter, neither Section 357(2) of the Cr. P.C. nor the decision relied on for the petitioners is of any help to the petitioners." 27. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on three judgments of High Courts, one of Punjab and Haryana High Court and two judgments of Patna High Court in support of his submissions. We need to refer to above judgments relied by the learned counsel for the appellant. The first judgment is judgment of Punjab and Hary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of Section 357 subsection (1) (b) Cr.P.C. for payment of compensation. Hence Section 357 subsection (2) Cr.P.C. was relied by the Court. Present is not a case of payment of any compensation out of fine imposed on appellant. Thus, the above case in no manner helps the appellant. 29. Now we come to the second case relied by the appellant i.e. Division Bench Judgment of Patna High court in Bharat Mandal son of Sitaram Mandal & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, 2012 (2) PLJR 855. In the above case accused were convicted under Section 307/149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. They were sentenced for life imprisonment and further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/each. The appeal was filed in which the Appellate Court declined to stay the payment of fine. The appellant pressed for stay of payment of fine which was considered by the High Court. High Court relied on Section 357 subsection (2) Cr.P.C. and accepted the submission of the appellant that the fine was not to be paid. Following was held in paragraph 7: "7. The argument of Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant is based squarely upon the literal interpretation from the Section. In our view, the subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appeal (DB) No.529 of 2012, Naresh Yadav@ Naresh Mahto & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, decided on 26.06.2012. The Judgment of Patna High Court has been placed on record along with the short submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the judgment indicate that Patna High Court has not noticed the facts of the case and the nature of Order passed by the trial Court regarding imposition of fine. The applicant prayed for modification of Order of the High Court by which the direction was issued for depositing the fine. Section 357 subsection (2) Cr.P.C. was relied and the Division Bench relying on earlier judgment of Patna High Court in Bharat Mandal & Ors. (Supra) modified the last paragraph of the Order dated 04.06.2012 providing that the fine imposed shall remain stayed till the decision of the case. The above judgment relies only on Bharat Mandal & Ors. which has already been noted above by us hence this judgment also does not help the appellant. 32. The object and purpose of Section 357 Cr.P.C. was considered by this Court in Hari Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh and others, (1988) 4 SCC 551. This Court held that the power given to the Court to direct for payment of comp....