KUMARAN versus STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 962 · Decided: 05-05-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
.B 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 962 
KUMARAN 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA & ANR. 
(CriminalAppeal Nos. 896-897 of 2017) 
MAYOS,2017 
[R. F. NARIMAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.431 - Compensation -
When compensation is ordered as payable for an offence committed 
C i1/s.J38 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and in default thereof. a 
jail sentence is prescribed and is undergone, whether compensation 
is still recoverable - Held: The fiction contained in s.431 must be 
extended logically until its object is accomplished - The object of 
the legal fiction created by s.431 is to extend for the purpose of 
recovery of compensation until such recovery is completed and this 
D would necessarily include not only s.421 of the C1:P.C. but also 
s. 70 of the Penal Code, a companion criminal statute - Thus, despite 
the fact that the' default sentence is undergone, compensation is 
still recoverable - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s.138 - Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - s.386. 
E 
Interpretation of statutes - Leg_al fiction - Deeming 
provision - A legal fiction is not to be extended beyond the purpose 
for which it is created or beyond the language of the section by 
which it is created - Howeve1; once the purpose of the legal fiction 
is ascertained, full effect must be given, and it should be carried to 
F its logical conclusion - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.431. 
Dismissing the· appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The last part of the proviso to sub-section (1) of 
Section 421, Cr.P.C., namely, "or unless it has made an order for 
the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under 
G Section 357" has been added to the proviso for the first time. 
H 
This was done pursuant to the 41" Law Commission Report. The 
third important provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure is 
Section 431. From this provision, it is clear that a deeming fiction 
is enacted, viz., that any money other than a fine, (which would 
include compensation payable under Section 357(3} Cr.P.C.} the 
962 
KUMARAN v. STATE OF KERALA & ANR. 
• 963 
method of recovery of which is not expressly provided for, shall A 
be recoverable as if it was a fine. [Paras 10, 11)(971-B-C] 
2. Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of 
punishment to which offenders are liable under the provisions of 
the Code. Fine is one of them, but compensation payable is not. 
Also contained in Chapter III of the Penal Code which is headed B 
"OF PUNISHMENTS" are the provisions of Sections 64 to 70. 
Section 64 recognises that it shall be competent to the Court 
which sentences an offender to state that, in default of payment 
of a fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment. Section 65 sets 
the limit to which such imprisonment can go. [Paras 12, 13)(971-
F-H] 
C 
3. Compensation under the old Cr.P.C. was always 
recoverable as a part of fine, and even after default imprisonment 
having been undergone, a fine could still be collected in the 
manner provided by Section 386. The requirement of special 
reasons was introduced by the amending Act of 1923. The special D 
reasons outlined in the Bombay High Court judgment of 1935 as 
well as in the Mysore High Court judgment of 1964 would show 
that it is enough that sufficient reasons or some good reason be 
given in order that fine be realized even after default 
imprisonment has been undergone. The Courts held that despite 
E 
the fact that the reach of Section 386(1) proviso was only qua 
warrants issued after default imprisonment was undergone, yet, 
the principle of the proviso to Section 386(1) would apply even 
to warrants issued before default imprisonment was undergone. 
The law, therefore, till the enactment of the 1973 Code, made it 
clear that Section 386, and Section 70 IPC read together would 
lead to the conclusion that fines were recoverable even after 
default imprisonment was undergone, provided there were special 
reasons for recovery of the same. With the Code of 1973 came 
F 
an interesting change. Sub-section (3) was added to Section 357, 
which was an entirely new provision making it clear that the Court G 
may, when passing judgment, order the accused to pay by way of 
compensation such amount as may be specified in the order to 
the pers.in who has suffered loss or injury by reason of the act for 
which the accused person has been sentenced. This is provided 
that the Court imposes a sentence of which fine does not form a 
H 
964. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017) 3 S.C.R. 
A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.