Darshan Lal vs State of Punjab

B.S. Yadav. J

The present petitioner Darshan LAl was convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. Instead of awarding sentence to him, the learned trial Court ordered him to be released on probation of good conduct on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 1000/ and also ordered him to pay Rs. 500/ as compensation. It was further ordered that out of compensation Rs.200/ would be paid to the injured. The Court, however, did not fix the period of probation. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. He maintained the conviction of the petitioner. As the petitioner had already submitted bonds for a period of one dear, the Court reduced the period of probation to 6 months. It also reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 400/. The petitioner has now filed this revision petition.

the only point that was raised by the leaned counsel for the petitioner was that as the petitioner had been released on probation, presumbly under section 360, Criminal Procedure Code and therefore he could not have been ordered to pay compensation. In support of his contention he has cited Girdhari Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1229 (2). I need not dilate upon the above contention is detail because Girdhari Lal''s case (supra) fully supports the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that case their Lordships observed:

"The short point arising in this appeal is a to whether the order the High Court directing payment of Rs. 3,000/ as litigation costs to the State is sustainable in the light of the provisions in S. 357, Cr.P.C.2.

It is obvious that for sustaining an order directing expenses to be paid to the State under this provision, there must be substantive sentence of fine. In t he absence of such a sentence of fine, no direction under C1. (a) can be made. In the present case, the High Court, while maintaining the conviction, has set aside the imprisonment imposed by the trial court and has not imposed any fine on the accused. On the other hand, the appellant has been given the benefit of probation. there cannot be a direction for compensation under S. 357 (a), where there is no sentence of fine, and where the convict has been let off on probation. We set aside the order of the High Court to the extent of imposition of compensation in a sum of Rs. 3,000/. the appeal is disposed of accordingly."

The learned State counsel augured that in the above case their Lordships were concerned with the litigation costs which the accused, who had been released on probation, was directed to pay to the State. According to him, the Court can award compensation to the injured. This argument has no force. Compensation for any loss or injury suffered by any person by reason of act for which the accused person has been convicted, can be ordered either under subsection (1) of section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code or sub section (3) of that section. Sub section (1) applies when a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence of which fine for as a part and sub section (3) applies when a Court impose a sentence of which fine does not form a part. In the present case the petitioner was not awarded any sentence. Therefore, neither of the above subsections are applicable to the present case.

For the foregoing reasons I accept present revision petition so far as it relates to the direction issued to the petitioner for paying compensation. That direction is set aside. The compensation, if paid, be refunded tot he petitioner. The revision is disposed of accordingly.