R. MOHANversusA.K. VIJAYA KUMAR

                      [2012] 7 S.C.R. 1


                          R. MOHAN                                 A
                               v.
                    A.K. VIJAYA KUMAR
             (Criminal Appeal No. 883 of 2012)
                        JULY 3, 2012
                                                                   B
 [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]

       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.357(3), 421 and
 431 - Sentence in default of payment of compensation -
 Legality of - Issuance of cheque without sufficient balance in    C
 the bank - Trial court sentenced the accused (drawer of the
 cheque) to simple imprisonment for 3 months and also
 directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the payee
 uls.357(3) CrPC - Further direction of trial court that if the
compensation amount was not paid, the accused would have           o
to undergo additional imprisonment of 2 months - Order
upheld by Sessions Court - In revision, High Court, while
confirming the conviction and sentence of 3 months simple
imprisonment as also order of compensation, held that no
separate sentence could be awarded in default of payment of        E
compensation when the substantive sentence of
imprisonment was independently awarded, and therefore, set
aside the sentence in default of payment of compensation -
On appeal, held: The idea behind directing the accused to
pay compensation to the complainant is to give him                 F
immediate relief so as to alleviate his grievance - In terms of
s.357(3)CrPC compensation is awarded for the loss or injury
suffered by the person due to the act of the accused for which
he is sentenced - If merely an order, directing compensation,
is passed, it would be totally ineffective - Deterrence can only   G
be infused into the order by providing for a default sentence
- If s.421 CrPC puts compensation ordered to be paid by the
court on par with fine so far as mode of recovery is concerned,
then there is no reason why the court cannot impose a
sentence in default of payment of compensation as it can be
                               1                                   H
    2        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A done in case of default in payment of fine u!s. 64 /PC - Thus,
    order to pay compensation may be enforced by awarding
    sentence in default - High Court erred in setting aside the
    sentence imposed in default of payment of compensation -
    Penal Code, 1860 - s.64 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
B   - s.138.

       Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138 - Conviction
  and sentence awarded to accused for issuing cheque without
  sufficient balance in the bank - Propriety of - Held: On facts,
  proper - The complainant's evidence was wholly satisfactory
C - High Court was perfectly justified in confirming the conviction
  and sentence in view of the promissory note (Ex-P1 ), the
  cheque (Ex-P2), reply dated 24-5-2002 sent by the accused
  to the complainant (Ex-PB) and the complainant's Income-tax
  Returns.
D
      The case of the complainant-payee was that the
  accused and his wife had jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.5
  lakhs from him and executed a promissory note in his
  favour; that the accused had also issued a cheque in his
E favour towards the principal amount and that when the
  said cheque was presented by the complainant with his
  banker for payment, it was dishonoured with bank's
  remark "insufficient funds". The accused denied the
  complainant's claim pleading that he had borrowed only
F Rs.3 Lakhs which he had already paid back and that the
  cheque was issued only as a security and that it was not
  returned to him though demanded. He relied on an entry
  from a diary maintained by him showing that as of April,
  2002, only a sum of Rs.90,101/- was due and payable by
G him to the complainant.
         The accused was tried by the Metropolitan Magistrate
    Court for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
    Instruments Act, 1881 whereupon he was sentenced to
    undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and directed to
H
            R. MOHAN v. AK. VIJAYA KUMAR                3

pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant under A
Section 357(3) of CrPC, and in default of payment of
compensation, to undergo additional 2 months simple
imprisonment. The Sessions court confirmed the
conviction and sentence. In revision, the High Court
confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of 3 B
months simple imprisonment and compensation of Rs.5
lakhs, however, the High Court was of opinion that no
separate sentence could be awarded in default of
payment of compensation when substantive sentence of
imprisonment is independently awarded. The High Court, C
therefore, set aside the sentence in default of payment of
compensation. Being aggrieved by the said order of
conviction and sentence, the accused filed appeal before
this Court. The complainant also filed appeal before this
Court being aggrieved by the order of the High Court to
the extent it set aside the order of sentence in default of D
payment of compensation.

    Dismissing the appeal filed by the accused and
allowing the appeal filed by the complainant, the Court
                                                            E
    HELD:

On merits

     1.1. The High Court was perfectly justified in
confirming the conviction and sentence. Ex-P1 is the F
promissory note in the sum of Rs.5 lakhs executed by the
accused and his wife in favour of the complainant. The
accused has not led any evidence to prove that the
promissory note (Ex-P1) is a got up document. In his
reply, he has nowhere taken such a stand. The cheque G
(Ex-P2) is also on record. According to the accused, he
had borrowed only Rs.3 lakhs from the complainant and
a blank cheque was offered as security to the
complainant. It is suggested in the notice that the said
cheque was misused by the complainant. This story has H
    4       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012) 7 S.C.R.

A to be rejected in view of the promissory note (Ex-P1 ). The
  accused has relied on xerox copy of some pages from a
  diary maintained by him (Ex-01 ). There is an entry in Ex-
  01 that as of April, 2002, an amount of Rs.90,101/- was
  payable by the accused to the complainant. The
B complainant has honestly admitted that the said
  acknowledgement is in his handwriting. It is contended
  by the accused that this disproves the complainant's
  case that an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was due from him to
  the complainant and in discharge of that debt cheque
c (Ex-P2) was given to him. It is not possible to accept this
  submission. Several chit transactions are noted in Ex-01.
  As stated by the complainant in his evidence, he has
  been carrying on several businesses since 1990. The
  accused had borrowed various amounts from him on
0 different occasions and he had repaid those amounts
  except the amount involved in the transaction in question.
  The complainant has stated that he finances people and
  collects interest at 18% per annum. The reference to 'chit'
  in Ex-01 indicates that he was running a chit fund
E scheme. The entries in Ex-01 appear to be entries in
  connection with the said chit fund scheme. The
  transaction reflected in Ex-01 cannot be confused with
  the loan of Rs.5 lakhs given by the complainant to the
  accused evidenced by promissory note (Ex-P1) and
F cheque (Ex-P2). The complainant's evidence is wholly
  satisfactory. By admitting that entry in Ex-01 is in his
  handwriting, he comes out as a truthful witness. If he had
  dishonest motive he would have never admitted that the
  said entry was in his handwriting. [Para 8] [11-A-H;12-A]
G      1.2. Moreover, if the case of the accused is that as of
  April, 2002, only an amount of Rs.90,101/- was due from
  him to the complainant, in his reply dated 24-5-2002, he
  should have said so. This statement is conspicuously
  absent in the said reply. It is pertinent to note that in order
H to satisfy itself, the High Court, while hearing the revision,
           R. MOHAN v. A.K. VIJAYA KUMAR                   5

directed the complainant to produce his Income-tax A
Returns of the relevant period. The High Court wanted to
see whether the instant loan transaction is reflected in the
complainant's Income-tax Returns. The complainant
produced the Income-tax Returns. The High Court found
that in the Assessment Year 2002-2003 and also for the B
subsequent assessment years, there is an entry of a sum
of Rs.5 lakhs as due from the accused to the
complainant. The complainant could not have
manufactured the Income-tax Returns. Thus, the
promissory note (Ex-P1 ), the cheque (Ex-P2), reply dated C
24-5-2002 sent by the accused to the complainant (Ex-PB)
and the Income-tax Returns to which a reference is made
by the High Court lead this Court to concur with the High
Court that the conviction and sentence awarded to the
accused is perfectly justified and no interference is called
                                                             0
for with the same. [Para 9] [12-B-E]

Whether the court can award a sentence in default of
payment of compensation

      2.1. Under Section 357,CrPC, the Court can pass          E
order to pay compensation. Sub-Section (1) of Section
357 of the Code empowers the court to award
compensation to the victim of offence out of the sentence
of fine imposed on the accused. From section 357(3) it is
clear that if a fine is not a part of the order of sentence,   F
the court may order the accused to pay compensation to
the person who has suffered any loss or injury because
of the act of the accused for which he is sentenced. [Para
10] [12-F-H; 13-A-B]
     2.2. There is no specific provision in the Code of G
Criminal Procedure which enables the court to sentence
a person who commits breach of the order of payment
of compensation. Section 421 CrPC provides for the
action which the court can take for the recovery of the
fine where the accused has been sentenced to pay a fine. H
    6      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A Proviso thereto states how to deal with a situation where
  default sentence is prescribed. Section 431 CrPC
  provides for recovery of any money (other than a fine)
  payable by virtue of any order made under the Code and
  the recovery of which is not otherwise expressly provided
B for. Compensation awarded by a court can fall in this
  category. Section 431 says that such money shall be
  recoverable as if it were a fine. Thus, one has to again
  fall back on section 421 CrPC for recovery of
  compensation directed to be paid by the court. For the
C purpose of mode of recovery, compensation is put on par
  with fine. [Paras 13, 14] [14-E; 15-F; 16-B-C]
      2.3. It cannot be said that where there is default in
  payment of compensation ordered by the court, recourse
  can only be had to Section 421 CrPC. If such a view is
D taken, the very object of sub-section (3) of Section 357
  would be frustrated and the relief contemplated therein
  would be rendered somewhat illusory. [Para 16] [16-G-
  H;17-A]
E      2.4. The idea behind directing the accused to pay
  compensation to the complainant is to give him
  immediate relief so as to alleviate his grievance. In terms
  of Section 357(3) compensation is awarded for the loss
  or injury suffered by the person due to the act of the
  accused for which he is sentenced. If merely an order,
F directing compensation, is passed, it would be totally
  ineffective. It could be an order without any deterrence
  or apprehension of immediate adverse consequences in
  case of its non-observance. The whole purpose of giving
  relief to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code
G would be frustrated if he is driven to take recourse to
  Section 421 of the Code. Order under Section 357 (3)
  must have potentiality to secure its observance.
  Deterrence can only be infused into the order by
  providing for a default sentence. If Section 421 of the
H Code puts compensation ordered to be paid by the court
         R. MOHAN v. A.K. VIJAYA KUMAR                  7

on par with fine so far as mode of recovery is concerned,    A
then there is no reason why the court cannot impose a
sentence in default of payment of compensation as it can
be done in case of default in payment of fine under
Section 64 IPC. The conclusion, therefore, is that the
order to pay compensation may be enforced by awarding        B
sentence in default. [Para 18] [17-E-H; 18-A-C]

    2.5. There is no illegality in the order passed by the
Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Court in
awarding sentence in default of payment of                   C
compensation. The High Court was in error in setting
aside the sentence imposed in default of payment of
compensation. [Para 19] [18-D]

    Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan 2002(2) SCC
420: 2002 (1) SCR 269; K.A. Abbas HSA v. Sahu Joseph         D
and Another 2010 (6) SCC 230: 2010 (6) SCR 822; Hari
Singh v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 551: 1988 (2)
Suppl. SCR 571; Vijayan v. Sadanandan K. & Anr. (2009) 6
SCC 652: 2009 (7) SCR 463 and K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran
Vaidhyan Ba/an (1997) 7 SCC 510 - relied on.                 E

Result

     3. The impugned order of the High Court to the extent
it quashes the sentence in default of payment of F
compensation, is set aside. The order passed by
Magistrate awarding two months simple imprisonment in
default of payment of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs under
Section 357(3) of CrPC is restored. Two months' time
granted to the accused to pay the said amount of
compensation to the complainant from the date of receipt G
of this order. [Para 20] [18-E-F]

                   Case Law Reference:
    2002 (1) SCR 269       relied on         Paras 7, 12
                                                             H
    8       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A       2010 (6) SCR 822        relied on            Paras 7, 14
        1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 571      relied on       Para 11
        2009 (7) SCR 463         relied on           Para 16
        (1997) 1 sec 51 o        relied on           Para 17
B
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 883 of 2012 etc.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 15.12.2011 of the High
c Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. No. 2007 of 2004.
                                 WITH
    Criminal Appeal No. 884 of 2012.

      Jayanth Muth Raj (for P. Soma Sundaram), R. Nedumaran,
D S. Beno Bencigar (For Sureshan P.) for the appearing parties.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. Leave
    granted.
E
        2. These two appeals can be disposed of by a common
  judgment as they arise out of the same facts and challenge the
  same judgment and order dated 15/12/2011 of the Madras
  High Court. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2299 of 2012 is
F filed by accused - R. Mohan ('the accused' for convenience)
  and Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3327 of 2012 is filed by
  complainant - A.K. Vijaya Kumar ('the complainant' for
  convenience).

       3. The accused was tried by the Vth Metropolitan
G Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai for an offence under
  Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short,
  "the said Act") and, by order dated 16/4/2004 he was
  sentenced to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and to
  pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant und€r
H Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (for
           R. MOHAN v. A.K. VIJAYA KUMAR                       9
            [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]

short, "the Code"), in default, to undergo two months simple        A
imprisonment. In appeal, the lllrd Additional Fast Track District
& Sessions Judge, Chennai confirmed the conviction and
sentence. In revision, the High Court confirmed the order of
conviction and sentence of three months simple imprisonment
and to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs, however, the High Court      B
was of opinion that no separate sentence could be awarded
in default of payment of compensation when substantive
sentence of imprisonment is independently awarded. The High
Court, therefore, set aside the sentence in default of payment
of compensation. Being aggrieved by the said order of               c
conviction and sentence, the accused has approached this
court by way of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2299 of 2012.
The complainant has filed Special Leave Petition No.3327 of
2012 being aggrieved by the order of the High Court to the
extent it sets aside the order of sentence in default of payment    D
of compensation.

     4. The brief facts are as under:

     The case of the complainant is that on 10/9/2001, the
accused and his wife jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from      E
him and executed a promissory note in his favour. The accused
also issued a cheque dated 14/5/2002 in favour of the
complainant towards the principal amount. When the cheque
was presented by the complainant with his banker for payment,
it was dishonoured with bank's remark "insufficient funds". The     F
complainant, thereafter, issued a statutory notice under Section
133 of the said Act. The accused in his reply stated that he had
borrowed only Rs.3,00,000/-; that he had paid the said amount
and that the cheque was issued only as a security and that it
was not returned though demanded. The complainant then filed        G
a Complaint under Section 200 of the Code. During the trial,
the complainant examined himself. The accused did not
examine any witness in support of his case. He denied the
complaint's case. He relied on an entry from a diary maintained
by him showing that as of April, 2002, only a sum of Rs.90, 101/    H
    10          SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A - was due and payable by him to the complainant.

        5. On these facts, the accused was sent up for trial before
    the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, who
    convicted him as aforesaid. We have already noted how the
    matter travelled upto this Court.
8
       6. We have heard Mr. R. Nedumaran, learned counsel
  appearing for the accused. He submitted that the courts below
  have fallen into a serious error in convicting the accused. He
  submitted that the importance of the diary entry (Ex.01)
C showing that as of April 2002 only a sum of Rs.90, 101 /- was
  due and payable by the accused to the complainant was
  completely overlooked by all the Courts including the High Court.
  He pointed out that the complainant has accepted that in the
  said diary entry, he had, in his own handwriting, acknowledged
D that only Rs.90, 101 /- was payable by the accused to him.
  Counsel submitted that the accused had borrowed only
  Rs.3,00,000/- and had issued a blank cheque as security. He
  had repaid that amount. But the complainant misused the
  cheque. Counsel submitted that the promissory note was not
E executed by the accused. Counsel submitted that the order
  directing payment of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the
  complainant is also illegal and unjust.

       7. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned counsel for the
  complainant submitted that the High Court was in error in
F observing that no sentence could have been awarded to the
  accused in default of payment of compensation when
  substantive sentence of imprisonment was awarded. In support
  of his submissions counsel relied on Suganthi Suresh Kumar
  v. Jagdeeshan 1 , and KA. Abbas HSA v. Sahu Joseph and
G Another2. Counsel submitted that the impugned order of the
  High Court be set aside only to that extent.
          8. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, we have
    1.   2002 (2) sec 420.
H 2. 2010 (6) sec 230.
           R. MOHAN v. A.K. VIJAYA KUMAR                     11
           [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
  no hesitation in recording that the High Court was perfectly A
 justified in confirming the conviction and sentence. Ex-P1 is the
 promissory note in the sum of Rs.5 lakhs executed by the
 accused and his wife in favour of the complainant. The accused
 has not led any evidence to prove that the promissory note (Ex-
 P 1) is a got up document. In his reply, he has nowhere taken B
 such a stand. The cheque (Ex-P2) is also on record. According
 to the accused, he had borrowed only Rs.3 lakhs from the
 complainant and a blank cheque was offered as security to the
 complainant. It is suggested in the notice that the said cheque
was misused by the complainant. This story has to be rejected c
 in view of the promissory note (Ex-P1 ). The accused has relied
 on xerox copy of some pages from a diary maintained by him
 (Ex-01). There is an entry in Ex-01 that as of April, 2002, an
 amount of Rs.90, 101/- was payable by the accused to the
complainant. The complainant has honestly admitted that the
                                                                   0
said acknowledgement is in his handwriting. It is contended by
the accused that this disproves the complainant's case that an
amount of Rs.5 lakhs was due from him to the complainant and
in discharge of that debt cheque (Ex-P2) was given to him. It
is not possible to accept this submission. We have carefully
examined Ex-01. Several chit transactions are noted in Ex-01. E
As stated by the complainant in his evidence, he has been
carrying on several businesses since 1990. The accused had
borrowed various amounts from him on different occasions and
he had repaid those amounts except the amount involved in the
transaction in question. The complainant has stated that he F
finances people and collects interest at 18% per annum. The
reference to 'chit' in Ex-01 indicates that he was running a chit
fund scheme. The entries in Ex-01 appear to be entries in
connection with the said chit fund scheme. The transaction
reflected in Ex-01 cannot be confused with the loan of Rs.5 G
lakhs given by the complainant to the accused evidenced by
promissory note (Ex-P1) and cheque (Ex-P2). The
complainant's evidence is wholly satisfactory. By admitting that
entry in Ex-01 is in his handwriting, he comes out as a truthful
witness. If he had dishonest motive he would have never H
    12         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A admitted that the said entry was in his handwriting.

       9. Moreover, if the case of the accused is that as of April,
  2002, only an amount of Rs.90,101/- was due from him to the
  complainant, in his reply dated 24/5/2002, he should have said
  so. This statement is conspicuously absent in the said reply. It
8
  is pertinent to note that in order to satisfy itself, the High Court,
  while hearing the revision, directed the complainant to produce
  his Income-tax Returns of the relevant period. The High Court
  wanted to see whether the instant loan transaction is reflected
C in the complainant's Income-tax Returns. The complainant
  produced the Income-tax Returns. The High Court found that in
  the Assessment Year 2002-2003 and also for the subsequent
  assessment years, there is an entry of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as
  due from the accused to the complainant. The complainant
  could not have manufactured the Income-tax Returns. Thus, the
D promissory note (Ex-P1), the cheque (Ex-P2), reply dated 24/
  5/2002 sent by the accused to the complainant (Ex-P8) and the
   Income-tax Returns to which a reference is made by the High
   Court lead us to concur with the High Court that the conviction
  and sentence awarded to the accused is perfectly justified and
E no interference is called for with the same.

       10. That takes us to the legal question whether the court
  can award a sentence in default of payment of compensation.
  Under Section 357 of the Code the Court can pass order to
F pay compensation. Sub-Section (1) of Section 357 of the Code
  empowers the court to award compensation to the victim of
  offence out of the sentence of fine imposed on the accused.
  Section 357(3) is relevant. It reads thus:
         "357. Order to pay compensation. -
G
         (1)    xxx                    xxx               xxx
         (2)    xxx                    xxx               xxx
              (3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine
H        does not form a part, the Court may, when passing
                R. MOHAN v. A.K. VIJAYA KUMAR                   13
                [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]

      judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of            A
      compensation, such amount as may be specified in the
      order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by
      reason of the act for which the accused person has been
      so sentenced."
                                                                      B
     Thus, if a fine is not a part of the order of sentence, the
court may order the accused to pay compensation to the
person who has suffered any loss or injury because of the act
of the accused for which he is sentenced.

     11. In Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. 3, the accused         C
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 p'robation of good
conduct. Each of them was ordered to pay compensation of
Rs.2,500/- to the injured. In default of payment of compensation,     D
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    E
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         F
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.
                                                                      G
      "11. The payment by way of compensation must, however,
      be reasonable. What is reasonable may depend upon the
      facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of

3.   (1988) 4   sec 551                                               H
    14        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A        compensation may be determined by taking into account
         the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and
         the ability of accused to pay. If there are more than one
         accused they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless
         their capacity to pay varies considerably. The payment
B        may also vary depending upon the acts of each accused.
         Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if
         necessary by instalments, may also be given. The court
         may enforce the order by imposing sentence in default."

       12. While dealing with a case under Section 138 of the
C said Act in Suganthi Suresh Kumar, relying on Hari Singh, this
  court reiterated the same view and held that the court can
  impose a sentence of imprisonment on the accused in default
  of payment of compensation ordered under Section 357(3) of
  the Code.
D
       13. Undoubtedly, there is no specific provision in the Code
  which enables the court to sentence a person who commits
  breach of the order of payment of compensatfon. Section 421
  of the Code provides for the action which the court can take
E for the recovery of the fine where the accused has been
  sentenced to pay a fine. Proviso thereto states how to deal with
  a situation where default sentence is prescribed. Section 421
  reads thus:

         "421. Warrant for levy of fine.-(1) When an offender has
F        been sentenced to pay a fine, the court passing the
         sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in
         either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may-

         (a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment
G        and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender;

         (b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district,
         authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land
         revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both,
         of the defaulter:
H
           R. MOHAN v. A.K. VIJAYA KUMAR                        15
            [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
     Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of        A
     payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and
     if such offender has undergone the whole of such
     imprisonment in default, no court shall issue such warrant
     unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it
     considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an        B
     order for the payment of expenses or compensation out
     of the fine under Section 357.

     (2) The State Government may make rules regulating the
     manner in which warrants under clause (a) of sub-section
     (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination        C
     of any claims made by any person other than the offender
     in respect of any property attached in execution of such
     warrant.

     (3) Where the court issues a warrant to the Collector under      D
     clause (b) of sub-section (1), the Collector shall realise the
     amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of
     arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a
     certificate issued under such law:

     Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the           E
     arrest or detention in prison of the offender."

       14. Section 431 of the Code provides for recovery of any
money (other than a fine) payable by virtue of any order made
under the Code and the recovery of which is not otherwise             F
expressly provided for. Compensation awarded by a court can
fall in this category. Section 431 says that such money shall be
recoverable as if it were a fine. Section 431 of the Code reads
thus:
                                                                      G
    "431. Money ordered to be paid recoverable as fine.-
    Any money (other than a fine) payable by virtue of any order
    made under this Code, and the method of recovery of
    which is not otherwise expressly provided for, shall be
    recoverable as if it were a fine:
                                                                      H
    16       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A              Provided that Section 421 shall, in its application to
         an order under Section 359, by virtue of this section, be
         construed as if in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section
         421, after the words and figures 'under Section 357', the
         words and figures 'or an order for payment of costs under
s        Section 359' had been inserted."

         Thus, one has to again fall back on section 421 of the
    Code for recovery of compensation directed to be paid by the
    court. For the purpose of mode of recovery, compensation is
    put on par with fine (See K.A. Abbas HSA.)
c
        15. Section 64 of the IPC also needs to be quoted
    because it provides for sentence of imprisonment for non-
    payment of fine. It reads thus:

         "64. Sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of
D
         fine.-ln every case of an offence punishable with
         imprisonment as well as fine, in which the offender is
         sentenced to a fine, whether with or without imprisonment,
         and in every case of an offence punishable with
         imprisonment or fine, or with fine only, in which the offender
E        is sentenced to a fine, it shall be competent to the court
         which sentences such offender to direct by the sentence
         that, in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall
         suffer imprisonment for a certain term, which imprisonment
         shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he
F        may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable
         under a commutation of a sentence."
       16. The above provisions were examined by this Court in
  Vijayan v. Sadanandan K. & Anr. 4 After quoting them, this
G 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
H 4. (20090 6 sec 652.
             R. MOHAN v. A.K. VIJAYA KUMAR                      17
              [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
sub-section (3) of Section 357 would be frustrated and the relief     A
contemplated therein would be rendered somewhat illusory.
     17. We respectfully concur with this view. 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           B
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      C
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          D
357(3) of the Code.
      18. The idea behind directing the accused to pay
compensation to the complainant is to give him immediate
relief so as to alleviate his grievance. In terms of Section 357(3)
compensation is awarded for the loss or injury suffered by the        E
person due to the act of the accused for which he is sentenced.
 If merely an order, directing compensation, is passed, it would
be totally ineffective. It could be an order without any deterrence
or apprehension of immediate adverse consequences in case
of its non-observance. The whole purpose of giving relief to the      F
complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code would be
frustrated if he is driven to take recourse to Section 421 of the
Code. Order under Section 357 (3) must have potentiality to
secure its observance. Deterrence can only be infused into the
order by providing for a default sentence. If Section 421 of the      G
Code puts compensation ordered to be paid by the court on
par with fine so far as mode of recovery is concerned, then there
is no reason why the court cannot impose a sentence in default
of payment of compensation as it can be done in case of
5.   (1997) 7 sec 510.                                                H
    18        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A default in payment of fine under Section 64 of the IPC. It is
  obvious that in view of this, in Vijayan, this court stated that the
  above mentioned provisions enabled the court to impose a
  sentence in default of payment of compensation and rejected
  the submission that the recourse can only be had to Section
8 421 of the Code for enforcing the order of compensation.
  Pertinently, it was made clear that observations made by this
  Court in Hari Singh are as important today as they were when
  they were made. The conclusion, therefore, is that the order to
  pay compensation may be enforced by awarding sentence in
C default.
      19. In view of the above, we find no illegality in the order
  passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the
  Sessions Court in awarding sentence in default of payment of
  compensation. The High Court was in error in setting aside the
D sentence imposed in default of payment of compensation.
       20. In the result, we dismiss the appeal arising out of
  Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2299 of 2012 filed by the
  accused and allow the appeal arising out of Special Leave
E Petition (Crl.) No. 3327 of 2012 filed by the complainant. We
  set aside the impugned order of the High Court to the extent it
  quashes the sentence in default of payment of compensation.
  We restore the order passed by learned Magistrate dated 16/
  4/2004 awarding two months simple imprisonment in default
  of payment of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs under Section 357(3)
F of the Code. We grant two months' time to the accused to pay
  the said amount of compensation to the complainant from the
  date of receipt of this order.
    8.8.8.                                    Appeals disposed of.