Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.45 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988
In Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors.[3], the accused were
convicted and sentenced under Section 325 read with Section 149, Section
323 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of the IPC. They were released
on probation of good conduct. Each of them was ordered to pay compensation
of Rs.2,500/- to the injured. In default of payment of compensation,
they were directed to serve their sentence. This court inter alia
considered whether the compensation awarded to the injured could be legally
sustained. This court observed that the power of the court under Section
357(3) to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences, but it is
in addition thereto and is intended to do something to reassure the victim
that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. This court
further observed that it is a measure of responding appropriately to crime
as well as of reconciling the victim with the offender. Describing it as a
constructive approach to crime, this court recommended to all courts to
exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better
way. It was clarified that the order to pay compensation may be enforced
by awarding sentence in default. The relevant observations of this court
may be advantageously quoted.
Vijayan vs Sadanandan K. & Anr on 5 May, 2009
16. The above provisions were examined by this Court in Vijayan v.
Sadanandan K. & Anr.[4] After quoting them, this Court rejected the
submission that where there is default in payment of compensation ordered
by the court, recourse can only be had to Section 421 of the Code because
there is no provision enabling the court to award a default sentence. This
Court observed that if such a view is taken, the very object of sub-section
(3) of Section 357 would be frustrated and the relief contemplated therein
would be rendered somewhat illusory.
K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999
In K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran
Vaidhyan Balan[5] while considering Section 357 (3) of the Code this Court
expressed that if the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class were to order
compensation to be paid to the complainant from out of the fine realised
the complainant will be the loser when the cheque amount exceeded the said
limit. In such a case a complainant would get only the maximum amount of
rupees five thousand because Judicial Magistrate First Class can as per
Section 29 (2) of the Code pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not
exceeding three years, or of fine not exceeding Rs. 5,000/-, or of both
(the said amount is now increased to Rs. 10,000/-). This Court clarified
that in such cases the Magistrate can alleviate the grievance of the
complainant by taking resort to Section 357(3) of the Code.
Section 29 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 133 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Suganthi Suresh Kumar vs Jagdeeshan on 15 January, 2002
In support of his
submissions counsel relied on Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan[1], and
K.A. Abbas HSA v. Sahu Joseph and Another[2]. Counsel submitted that the
impugned order of the High Court be set aside only to that extent.
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
K.A.Abbas H.S.A vs Sabu Joseph & Anr on 11 May, 2010
In support of his
submissions counsel relied on Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan[1], and
K.A. Abbas HSA v. Sahu Joseph and Another[2]. Counsel submitted that the
impugned order of the High Court be set aside only to that extent.
1