SATYENDRA KUMAR MEHRA @ SATENDERA KUMAR MEHRA versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 1033 · Decided: 23-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1033
SATYENDRA KUMAR MEHRA @ SATENDERA KUMAR
MEHRA
v.
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 2018)
MARCH 23, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.357(2) – Appellant
was tried for the offence punishable u/ss.420,467,468,471 r/w.120-B
IPC – Trial Court convicted the appellant and awarded sentence
with fine – Appellant filed appeal before the High Court and also
filed application for suspension of sentence – High Court allowed
the application for suspension of sentence, however, directed
appellant to deposit the fine amount awarded before the Court below
– Whether by virtue of s.357(2) Cr.P.C., the said fine which was
part of sentence automatically was stayed till the decision of the
appeal and would not have been directed by the High Court to be
deposited by the appellant – Held: No infirmity in the order of the
High Court – In instant case, s.357(2) Cr.P.C. not attracted since
there was no direction of payment of any compensation out of the
fine imposed by the trial court as part of sentence – s.357 Cr.P.C.(2)
comes into play only where any order of payment of compensation
utilising the fine imposed as sentence u/s.357(1) Cr.P.C. or
compensation as directed u/s. 357(3) Cr.P.C. is made – Present being
neither a case of s.357(1) Cr.P.C. nor s.357(3), sub-section(2) of
s.357 Cr.P.C. clearly not applicable.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.357(2) – Purpose and
object – Held: s.357(1) Cr.P.C. contemplated utilisation of fine
imposed in certain circumstances as compensation to be paid to
victim – Sub-s.(2) of s.357 engrafted an embargo that such payment
shall not be made till the period allowed for appeal has elapsed or
if the appeal is filed, till the same is decided – Legislature was
conscious that compensation paid if utilised, there may not be
appropriate measures to recover the said amount utilised from victim
to whom the compensation is paid hence embargo in payment has
been engrafted in sub-s.(2) – Thus at best sub-s.(2) of s.357 Cr.P.C.
[2018] 4  S.C.R. 1033
1033
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1034
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
is a provision which defers or withholds the utilisation of the amount
of compensation awarded till the limitation of appeal elapses or if
filed till it is decided – The provision in no manner stays the sentence
of fine during the pendency of the appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The fine is contemplated to be utilised for
compensating different circumstances as enumerated in Section
357(1) Cr.P.C.  Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. sub-section (2) of Section
357 Cr.P.C. has been engrafted  in reference to what was stated
in sub-Section (1) of Section 357 Cr.P.C. Crucial words used in
sub-section (2)  of Section 357 Cr.P.C. are “no such payment
shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal
has elapsed, or if an appeal be presented, before the decision of
the appeal”. Thus, what is prohibited under Section 357(2) Cr.P.C.
is that payment of compensation utilising the fine be not paid till
the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or if an
appeal is filed then before the decision of the appeal.  It does not
involve any concept of stay of sentence. [Para 14] [1041-C-D]
2.  Section 357 Cr.P.C. contains an embargo that on passing
a judgment of sentence of fine, the fine be not utilised for payment
of compensation till contingency as mentioned therein does not
occur. The sentence awarded by the Court including sentence of
fine is in no way affected by embargo contained in Section 357(2)
Cr.P.C. The operation of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. is restricted to
payment of compensation as contemplated by Section 357(1) and
(3) Cr.P.C. The heading of the Section 357 Cr.P.C. i.e. “Order to
pay compensation” as well as contents of the Section lead to only
one conclusion that the entire provision has been engrafted
regarding payment of compensation out of the fine imposed or
when Court imposes sentence the fine is not part of which, the
Court may by way of compensation direct payment of such amount
to a person who has suffered the injury. Thus, Section 357 Cr.P.C.
has nothing to do with suspension of sentence awarded by the
trial court and the sentence of fine imposed on the accused is in
no way affected by Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. The present is not a
case where trial court has directed payment of any compensation
to anyone out of fine imposed. There is no direction for payment
of compensation in the order of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.