K.A. ABBAS versus SABU JOSEPH & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 6 S.C.R. 822 · Decided: 11-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010) 6 S.C.R. 822 
K.A. ABBAS 
v. 
SABU JOSEPH & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1052 of 2010 etc.) 
MAY 11, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
c 
ss. 357(3), 431 and 421 - Sentence of imprisonment for 
default in payment of compensation - Propriety of - Held: 
Imposition of such sentence is permissible - Payment of 
compensation is to accommodate the interest of the victims 
- In view of s. 431 compensation is a/so recoverable as a fine 
0 - s. 421 provides for imprisonment for non-payment of fine -
Sentence I Sentencing. 
s. 357(3) - Power of court to pay compensation - Scope 
and purpose of - Discussed - Use of such power is a 
constructive approach to crimes - Recommendation to the 
E courts to use this power liberally so as to meet the ends of 
justice in a better way. 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 
F 
s. 138 - Conviction under - By trial court - Imposition of 
fine of Rs. 5 lakhs with default stipulation - As per order of 
appellate court as we// as revision court, accused depositing 
amount of Rs. 2 lakhs towards compensation - Revision court 
directing the accused to deposit Rs. 4 lakhs towards balance 
amount of compensation - On appeal, held: Direction to 
G deposit amount of Rs. 4 lakhs is based on factual error -
Since the accused has already deposited Rs. 2 lakhs, he is 
required to deposit only Rs. 3 lakhs as due compensation. 
In a complaint u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 
H 1881, the trial court found3~ applicant-accused guilty 
K.A. ABBAS v. SABU JOSEPH 
823 
and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one year. 
A 
In addition it directed payment of compensation of Rs. 5 
lakhs to the complainant u/s. 357 (3) CrPC and in default 
to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of two 
months. 
Appellate court at the time of entertaining the appeal 
directed the accused to deposit Rs. 1 lakh being a part 
of the compensation, which was deposited. Eventually 
order of trial· court was confirmed. 
' 
B 
In Revision Petition, High Court by an interim order C 
directed the. accused to deposit Rs. 1 lakh. High Court 
in the facts ~f the case, modified the sentence to the 
effect that if the accused paid the balance compensation 
amount of Rs. 4 lakhs within a specified period, the term 
of imprisonment would be reduced to the period till the 
D 
rising of the Court and in case of default to undergo 
simple )mprisonment for three months by way of default 
sentence. Hence, the present appeals by the accused as . 
well as by the complainant. 
Partly allowing the appeal of the accused and 
dismissing the appeal of the complainant, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 357 Cr.P.C. empowers the courts, 
not just to impose a fine alone or fine along with the 
sentence of imprisonment, but also when the situation 
arises, direct the accused to pay compensation to the 
person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of 
the act for which the accused person has been 
sentenced. [Para 15] [831-G-H] 
E 
F 
1.2. Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. empowers the court to G 
award compensation to victims while passing judgment 
of conviction. In addition to conviction, the court may 
order the accused to pay some amount by way of 
compensation to the victim who has suffered by the 
H 
824 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 6 S.C.R. 
A action of accused. This power of courts to award 
compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it 
is in addition thereto. This power was intended to do 
something to reassure the victim that he or she is not 
forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure 
s of responding appropriately to crime as well of 
reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some 
extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a 
step forward in criminal justice system. Therefore, it is 
recommended to all the courts to exercise this power 
c liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way. 
[Para 19) [834-F-H; 835-A-B] 
D 
Sarwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1978 SC 
1525; Ba/raj v. State of U.P. AIR 1995 SC 1935; Hari Kishan 
v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors. AIR 1988 SC 2127, relied on. 
Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and Anr. 
(2007) 6 sec 528, referred to. 
2.1. A sentence of imprisonment can be granted for 
default in payment of compensation awarded u/s. 357(3) 
E Cr.PC. The whole purpose of the provision is to 
accommodate the interests of the victims in the criminal 
justice system. Sometimes the situa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.