Case Note & Summary
The applicant, T. Veeruswami, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the trial court in Criminal Case No.16057 of 2009 and sentenced to one month simple imprisonment and directed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant, M/s. Ramsons Casting Pvt. Ltd. The applicant appealed against the conviction. The appellate court (Additional Sessions Judge-7, Nagpur) admitted the appeal and suspended the sentence but imposed a condition that the applicant deposit Rs.5,00,000/- in the appellate court. Aggrieved by this condition, the applicant filed a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court. The applicant argued that under Section 357(2) CrPC, compensation awarded under Section 357(3) cannot be paid to the victim until the appeal period is over or the appeal is decided, and therefore the appellate court could not direct deposit of compensation as a condition for suspension of sentence. The High Court examined the distinction between fine and compensation. It noted that compensation under Section 357(3) is not a fine and is not subject to the bar under Section 357(2) which applies only to fines. The court held that the appellate court has the power under Section 389 CrPC to impose conditions while suspending sentence, including a direction to deposit part of the compensation amount. However, considering the applicant's financial condition, the High Court modified the condition, reducing the deposit amount from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/-. The revision application was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Suspension of Sentence - Condition of Deposit - Section 389 read with Section 357 CrPC - The appellate court while suspending sentence can impose condition of depositing part of compensation amount awarded under Section 357(3) CrPC - The distinction between fine and compensation is that compensation is not a fine and can be paid to the victim even during pendency of appeal if so directed - Held that the appellate court's direction to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- was not illegal but modified to Rs.2,50,000/- considering the applicant's financial condition (Paras 3-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court can direct deposit of compensation amount as a condition for suspending sentence under Section 389 CrPC, and whether such direction is barred by Section 357(2) CrPC
Final Decision
The revision application is partly allowed. The condition imposed by the appellate court directing deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- is modified to Rs.2,50,000/-. The applicant shall deposit Rs.2,50,000/- within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC is distinct from fine
- appellate court can impose condition of deposit of part of compensation while suspending sentence under Section 389 CrPC
- Section 357(2) CrPC does not bar payment of compensation during pendency of appeal if ordered by appellate court
