Sandeep Agrawal and Others vs Sandeep Agrawal

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.—By the impugned order, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, while entertaining the appeal of the applicants under Section 374, Cr.P.C. granted the application under Section 389(1), Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence subject to certain conditions. While granting the application for suspension, it has been directed by learned. Additional Sessions Judge that sentence awarded to the applicants for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called as "NI Act") shall remain suspended on applicants furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each and further directed that if 25% of compensation granted by the Trial Magistrate is deposited within one month, then, they shall be entitled to be released on bail.

Shri M.K. Bhaduri, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an illegality in directing deposit of 25% of compensation granted by the Trial Magistrate as the amount of compensation granted under aforesaid provision of law is not a part of sentence. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed in the matter of Balraj Vs. State of U.P., .

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants and perused the order impugned carefully.

In the instant case, the Trial Magistrate, by its judgment dated 25-6-2014 convicted the applicants for commission of offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced them to Undergo SI for two months and also directed them to deposit Four lakhs and fifty thousand towards compensation and in default, to further undergo SI for one month.

The learned Sessions Judge, while granting bail and directing suspension of sentence, imposed the following condition:--

It is well-settled that consideration by Criminal Court to grant compensation to the victim of a crime is mandatory and there exist a mandatory duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question in every criminal cases and grant of compensation to the victim is equally a part of sentence. Very recently, in a decision reported in State Vs. Sanjiv Bhalla, , Their Lordships of Supreme Court has clearly held that grant of compensation is a part of just sentencing and held as under:--

"31. (c) The grant of compensation to the victim of a crime is equally a part of just sentencing;

(d) When it is not possible to grant compensation to the victim of a crime, the Trial Judge must record his or her reasons."

In a decision reported in Balraj (supra), cited and relied upon by the applicant''s Counsel, the Supreme Court has categorically held that power to award compensation is not just ancillary to the other sentence, but it is in addition thereto, and held as under:--

"11........ We are also of the view that this is very-much necessary. Section 357(3), Cr.P.C. provides for ordering of payment toy way of compensation to the victim by the accused. It is an important provision and it must also be noted that power to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh. In the instant case, the records show that the appellant Balraj has property and also some means."

Thus, in sum and substance, the award of compensation under Section 357(3), Cr.P.C. to the victim is a part and parcel of just sentencing, and therefore, learned Sessions Judge is absolutely justified in imposing condition of deposit of 25% of compensation amount while granting the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicants/accused. I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. Accordingly, the revision fails and hereby dismissed.