IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6681 OF 2009 Between: G. Venkata Rao. ..... PETITIONER. AND The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad, and another. ..... RESPONDENTS. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the Order dated 15-06-2009 in Crl. M.P. No.2519 of 2009 in C.C. No.216 of 2000 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. G. VENKATESWARA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the first Respondent, the Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6681 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri G. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl. M.P. No.2519 of 2009 in C.C. No.216 of 2000. The impugned order is self explanatory and the petition was filed by the present petitioner for payment of Rs.2,73,000/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy three thousand only) from out of the sale proceeds received in the case from the Tahsildar, Ungutur, West Godavari District on sale of the house belonging to the accused. The learned Magistrate recorded that the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was taken on file in C.C. No.216 of 2000 and the accused did not appear before the Court in spite of service of summons and in spite of issuance of Non Bailable Warrants. The learned Magistrate further quoted that the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so instituted are pursued due to absence of the accused in the case on which the house belonging to the accused was sold by Tahsildar concerned, the sale proceeds of which were credited to the account of the case. The learned Magistrate further noticed that, the duty of the criminal Court is limited and the sale proceeds cannot be paid to the petitioner in the criminal proceedings. The learned Magistrate further noted that, the compensation can be awarded only when a sentence is being imposed and therefore he dismissed the petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said Order and contends that, under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate has the power to pay expenses and compensation to the petitioner. Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is self explanatory and it is only when a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence of which fine forms part, the Court can order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied in discharging the expenses incurred for the prosecution or any payment of any compensation for any loss or injury caused for any offence etc., As in the present case, the stage of the imposition of a sentence of fine or a sentence of which fine forms part had been never reached, the question of application of Section 357 had not arisen. As a subordinate Criminal Court has no powers beyond what have been specifically conferred by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law and cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction, the learned Magistrate cannot be considered to have gone wrong, when he rejected the request in the application for payment of the amount from out of sale proceeds of the house sent to him by the Tahsildar concerned. While, the Criminal petition is therefore unsustainable, Sri G. Venkateswara Rao learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact for the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the petitioner that incurred the expenses for publication etc., and at least those expenses have to be reimbursed to the petitioner. As this question was not specifically raised and considered before the learned Magistrate, liberty should be left open to the petitioner to approach the trial Court with an appropriate request, which should be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. Therefore, the Criminal petition is dismissed but, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, by way of an appropriate application concerning any relief which he seeks about the expenses incurred by the petitioner in respect of the proceedings taken under Sections 82 and 83 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Magistrate may decide such request in accordance with law on merits uninfluenced by these proceedings. ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 25-08-2009. Dsh.