VIJAYAN versus SADANANDAN K. & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 463 · Decided: 05-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 463 
\ 
VIJAYAN 
A 
v. 
SADANANDAN K. & ANR. 
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3220 of 2008 
MAY 5, 2009 
B 
(ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.) 
... 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
ss. 357(3)and 431 - Order to pay compensation - Power 
of court to pass default sentence -
Held: Provisions of c 
ss.357(3) and 431 CrPC. rlw s.64 IPC, empower the court, while 
making an order for payment of compensation, a/so to include 
a default sentence in case of non-payment of the same- Penal 
Code, 1860 - s. 64. 
"' 
Constitution oflndia, 1950-Article 141- Law laid down 0 
by Supreme Court - Binding effect of - HELD: When decision 
of the Supreme Court was holding the field, High Court erred 
in relying on a decision of another High Court. 
In the instant special leave petition, filed by the 
E 
accused, the question for consideration before the Court 
was: whether a default sentence could be imposed when 
compensatibn was awarded under sub-s. (3) of s.357 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1 The power to impose a default sentence 
in case of non-payment of compensation uls 357(3) 
Cr.P.C. has been duly recognized by this Court. While 
awarding compensation uls 357(3), the court is within its 
jurisdiction to add a default sentence of imprisonment. G 
The provision for grant of compensation u/s 357(3), and 
\' 
the recovery thereof makes it necessary for imposition of 
a default sentence as has been held by this Court in Hari 
Singh'* and Sugnathi Suresh Kumar . The law has been 
463 
H 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R 
A correctly stated in the said two decisions. When the 
, 
decision of this Court in Hari Singh was holding the field, 
the Single Judge of the High Court wrongly relied on the 
decision of the Kerala High Court in Rajendran's case**. 
[para 19 and 23] [472-F-G; 474-F-G] 
B 
*Hari Singh v Sukhbir Singh(1998) 4 SCC 551; Sugnathi 
Suresh Kumar v. Jaagdeeshan (2002) 2 SCC 420; Shanti/a/ 
v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 11 SCC 243 and Ku/dip 
• 
Kaur v. Surinder Singh (1989) 1 SCC 405 - relied on. 
c 
**Rajendran V Jose (2002) 1 Crimes 653 - overruled. 
Dilip S. Oahanukar V Kotak Mahindra Co.Ltd. & Anr. 
(2007) 6 sec 528 - held inapplicable. 
1.2 Section 357 Cr.P.C. bears the heading "Order to 
D pay compensation". It includes in sub-s. (1) the power of 
the court to utilize a portion of the fine imposed for the 
.. 
purpose of compensating any person for any loss or 
injury caused by the offence. In addition, sub-s.(3) 
provides that when a sentence is imposed by the court, 
E of which fine does not form a part, the court may, while 
passing judgment, order the accused to pay by way of 
compensation such amount as may be specified in the 
order to the person who suffers any loss or injury by 
reason of the act for which the accused has been so 
F 
sentenced. It is true that the said provision does not 
include the power to impose a default sentence, but read 
with s. 431 Cr.P.C. the said difficulty can be overcome by 
the Magistrate imposing the sentence. Section 431 makes 
it clear that any money other than a fine payable on 
account of an order passed under the Code shall be 
G recoverable as if it were a fine. Section 64 IPC lays down 
that while imposing a sentence of fine, the court would 
J 
be competent to include a default sentence to ensure 
payment of the same. [para 20-21] [473-8-E; 474-A] 
H 
1.3 Thus, the provisions of ss. 357(3) and 431 Cr.P.C;, 
.. 
~ 
VIJAYAN V. SADANANDAN K. & ANR. 
465 
when read with s.64 IPC, empower the court, while making A 
an order for payment of compensation, also to include a 
default sentence in case of non-payment of the same. If 
recourse can only be had to s.421 Cr.P.C. for enforcing 
the same, the very object of slib-s.(3) of s.357 would be 
frustrated and the relief contemplated therein would be 
B 
rendered somewhat illusory. [para 22] [474-D-F] 
Case Law Reference 
(2002) 1 Crimes 653 overruled 
para 8 
(2001) 6 sec 528 
held inapplicable para 6 
(1998) 4 sec 551 
relied on 
para 10 
(2002) 2 sec 420 
relied· on 
para 10 
(2007) 11 sec 243 
relied on 
para 13 
(1989) 1 sec 405 
relied on 
para 13 
CIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave 
Petition (Crl.) No. 3220 of 2008 
c 
D 
From the Judgement and Order dated 28.05.2007 of the 
E 
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Revision Petition 
No. 1836 of 2007. 
Dr. Kailasahnatha Pillay, R.K. Pandey, Vijay Kumar, for t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.