LexMANGILAL versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MANGILAL A V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH JANUARY 5, 2004 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] B "( Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Seclion 357: Grant of compensation by the High Courl to heirs of deceased/injured c withoul affording an opporlzmity of hearing to lhe accused-Correctness of- Held: The power of the Courl to award compensation nol ancillary lo other sentences but in addition thereto-When substantial rights of parties are considerably affected, principles of natural justice have lo be followed unless found excluded by express words of statutes or necessary intendment-Statutory silence implies compliance with the principles of natural justice-High Court D directed to grant an opportunity to hear the accused before directing any payment of compensation. \ Words and Phrases: 'May'-Meaning of in the context of Section 357 of the Criminal E Procedure Code-Interpretation of Statutes. ,,. The question involved in this appeal was limited to the scope and , ambit of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal procedure and grant of compensation thereunder. F It was contended for the accused-appellant that the High Court did not take into consideration the objects underlying grant of compensation ~ under Section 357 Cr.P.C.; that though the trial Court did not impose any fine but the High Court directed payment of compensation without even affording an opportunity to hear the accused while fixing' the quantum of G compensation; and that an additional liability was fastened on the accused. On behalf of the State, it was contended that the compensation "I awarded was in addition to the fine; and that since Section 357 Cr.P.C. did not postulate grant of an opportunity of hearing, it is not necessary to afford the accused an opportunity before ordering him to pay H I 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) I S.C.R. A compensation to the victim. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. I. The basic difference between sub-section (I) and (3) of Section 357 Cr.P.C. is that in the former case the imposition of fine is the B basic and essential requirement, while in the latter even in the absence thereof, the Court is empowered to direct payment of compensation. Such power is available to be exercised by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Sessions when exercising revisional powers. The power of the Court to award compensation to victims under Section 357 is not C ancillary to other sentences but is in addition thereto. [7-C-E] Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors., [ 1998[ 4 SCC 551 and Sarwan Singh and Ors. etc. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1978) SC 1525, referred to. 1.2. Where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles D of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary intendment. Its aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage E of justice. Principles of natural justice do not supplant the law, but supplement it. These rules operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They are means to an end and not an end in themselves. Hence, the irresistible conclusion is that opportunity has to be granted before directing payment of compensation under Section 357 (4) of the Code. [8-G, H; 9-A-C] F Sll'adesi Cotton Mills etc. etc. v. Union of India etc. etc., AIR (1961) \ I SC 818, relied on. -< 1.3. The use of the l'xpression "may" throws light on the legislative intent in the context it is used. It has been used in the permissible sense G and docs not make it obligatory. In the aforesaid background, the inevitable conclusion is that if the Appellate Court intends to award compensation an opportunity of hearing has to be granted so that the relevant aspects like the need to award compensation, capacity of the accused to pay and several other relevant factors can be taken note of. H Hence, the part of the High Court judgment which relates to direction - MANGILAL v.STA TE OF M. P. [ARIJIT PASA Y AT. J.] 3 for payment of compensation by the accused-appellant is set aside. The A matter is remitted back to the High Court, which shall grant an opportunity to the accused-appellant, and the adjudication shall be limited to that question particularly relating to the li
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.