LexDILIP S. DAHANUKAR versus KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A DILIP S. DAHANUKAR v. KOT AK MAHINDRA CO.LTD. AND ANR. APRIL I 0, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] r Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 : c Sections 357 and 424-Jmprisonment for default in payment of fine- Held-It remains stayed pending elapsing of period for presenting appeal or decision therein-Section 424 is subject to Section 357(2). Section 357(3)-Compensation not forming part of sentence of fine- Recovery of-Held-Pending elapsing of period for presenting appeal or D decision therein, its recovery remains stayed-It is unacceptable that although '! compensation payable out of quantum of fine would remain stayed under ... Section 357(2) of Code, if a compensation is directed to be paid under sub- ) Section (3) thereof. same would not attract said provision-It was more so as compensation was recoverable as a 'fine~ but legal fiction raised in relation to recovery of fine only, it is in that sense 'fine' stood on a higher E footing than compensation-If, therefore, under Section 357(2) realization of fine' is to be stayed automatically, there is no reason as to why legislative intent cannot apply to compensation directed to be paid in terms of sub- Section (3). Section 357(3)-Compensation not forming part of sentence of fine- F Quantum of-Held-It compensates in one way or another, hence amount / thereof must be reasonable and not arbitrary-It should not be more than -..:. sufficient to compensate complainant-Ordinarily, it should be less than amount which can be granted by a Civil Court upon appreciation of evidence brought before it for losses which might have reasonably been suffered by G plaintiff-Though there is no upper limit to it, its subject to other provisions of Code which mandates that amount of fine imposed on an accused cannot be mor:e than five thousand-Jn view of fact that Parliament did not think it fit to put a ceiling limit in regard to amount of compensation leviable upon A_ an accused, discretionary jurisdiction thereto must be exercised judiciously. H 1122 DILIPS. DAHANUKAR.v. KOT AK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. 1123 Section 357(3)-Compensation not forming part of sentence of fine- A Order for payment of-Held-Before issuing a direction to pay compensation, capacity of accused to pay it must be judged; a summary enquiry in this behalf is necessary and some reasons, which may not be very elaborate, also have to be assigned-Furthermore, as Section 357(3) neither imposes any limitation o~ power to grant compensation nor enumerates factors for which B it is to be paid, power to grant it should be exercised only in appropriate cases, and such jurisdiction cannot be exercised at whims and caprice of a judge. Section 357(3)-Compensation not forming part of sentence of fine- Conditions for suspension of sentence-Held-They should also be C reasonable-A part of compensation may be directed to be deposited, but that must be a reasonable amount-Order may not be passed which cannot be complied resulting in a person being sent to prison-Court, in such cases, must endeavour to strike a balance-Section 421 of Code may be taken recourse to-Ordinarily, a person should not suffer imprisonment only because conditions imposed for suspending sentence are harsh-Also, an accused D shall not be taken in custody during trial. Section 357-Compensation-Award of-Held-Magistrates cannot award it in addition to fine-1--Power to award it under Section 357(3) .is not an ancillary power, but an additional power-Also, when fine is imposed, private party has no right to insist that compensation may be awarded to him E out of it. Section 357(3)-Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881-Sections 138 and 141-Company along with its Chairman convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 r.w. 141 of Act of 1881-Company sentenced to pay afine F of twenty five thousand rupees and in default thereof, Chairman was to suffer simple imprisonment for one month-Also, Chairman sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and directed to pay a compensation of ftjieen lakhs rupees under Section 357(3) to complainant-On admission of appeal against it, direction given for deposition of amount of five lakhs rupees each-Correctness of-Direction of Trial Judge was unreasonable- For all G intent and purpose, both Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 357 were invoked-Liability of Chairman was a vicarious one in terms of Section 141 of Act of 1881- Direction/or payment of compensation
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.