TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not arise. Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. states that when a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation any amount that the Court deems fit to the person who has suffered any loss or injury. This Court, therefore, finds no legal infirmity in the impugned Order dated 24.12.2020 of the Ld. Trial Court, and is of the opinion that the decision rendered by the Ld. Trial Court is well-considered and showcases application of judicial mind. This application is completely misconceived and only demonstrates the avarice of the petitioner who wants compensation after settling the dispute. This application is nothing but an abuse of the process of law - petition is dismissed. - CRL.REV.P. 13/2021 & CRL.M.A. 618/2021 - - - Dated:- 10-12-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD Petitioner Through : Mr. R.S. Rathi, Advocate. Respondent Through : Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the State. Mr. Adnan Ahmed, Advocate for R-2 SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 24.12.2020 pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the account of Delhi Legal Services Authority (East), Delhi. e) Being aggrieved with the Order dated 24.12.2020, the Petitioner/Complainant has approached this Court by filing the instant revision petition with the following prayers: (i) Set aside the impugned order dated 24.12.2020 passed by Ld. Adell. Sessions Judge, KKD Court in Crl. Appeal No.27 /2020 and allow the Petitioner to recover the amount of 20 /o i.e. ₹ 60,000/- as deposited through Bank Draft/DD in favour of Ld. District Sessions Judge (East) at the time of admission of the said appeal 1n lieu of suspensions of 6 months R.I. sentence of Respondent No.1. (ii) Enhance fine in lieu of suspension of the sentence of the Respondent No.1 along with the aforesaid deposited amount in favour of the Petitioner for the end of justice. (iii) Pass any other order as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 3. Mr. R.S. Rathi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, argues that the amount of 20% of the total compensation, i.e. ₹ 60,000/- that was directed by the Ld. Trial Court to be deposited at the time of admission of the appeal and subsequently forfeited towa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter that warrants imposition of a sentence, there is no question of the person who has suffered any loss or injury being compensated. Therefore, the said Section 357(3) does not apply in the instant case. 8. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to any compensation after compounding the offence. This Court also does not find any weight in the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner [P. Ramdas v. State of Kerala (supra)] as that case pertains solely to waiver of the sentence related to imprisonment and does not interfere in the finding of conviction of the Appellant therein. Furthermore, the directions rendered in the same regarding compensation that was deposited before the Ld. Trial Court being transferred to the Appellant therein in lieu of suspension of sentence form the obiter dicta of that judgement. Those directions, passed in the facts of that case, cannot be said to be the law of the land that are to be followed in every case, and therefore, are not binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. This Court finds it unfortunate that precious judicial time is wasted in adjudication of such petitions that are meant to wholly subserve the avar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section 482 is based upon the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The section confers very wide power on the Court to do justice and to ensure that the process of the court is not permitted to be abused. (emphasis supplied) Similarly in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC 123, the Supreme Court observed as under: 14. In the case before us, the learned Magistrate went through the entire records of the case, not limiting to the report filed by the police and has passed a reasoned order holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
