1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1213 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.455 OF 2008 Prakash Jayendra Shete & Ors. ..... Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra & anr. ..... Respondents. ----- Mr. Ganesh Gole for the applicants. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 26th November, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. Applicants are seeking stay to the order of compensation which is directed to be paid by the Trial Court to the complainant to the tune of Rs 25,000/-. 3. Trial Court, while convicting the accused, had sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs 3000/- each and, further, an amount of compensation of Rs 25,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants has relied upon the provisions of section 357 sub-clause (1) and sub- 2 clause(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is submitted that only in cases where fine does not form part of the sentence, the Court has power to award compensation under sub-clause (3) of section 357 and all other cases would be covered by the provisions of sub-clause (1) of section 357 which stipulates that the Court has power to award compensation to the victim out of the fine which is imposed by the Trial Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the amount of compensation cannot exceed the amount of fine which is imposed by the Trial Court. 5. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in cases of Mangilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2004, SC 1280, State of Punjab vs. Gurmej Singh, reported in 2002 (6) SC 663 and in the case of Rachhpal Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2002 (6) SC 462. 6. In view of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in aforesaid cases which would apply to the facts of this case, prima facie case is made out by the applicants for grant of stay to the order of compensation which is awarded by the Trial Court which is in excess of the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court. Hence, the impugned order of payment of compensation is stayed in terms of prayer clause (a) of the application. 7. Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. 3 (V.M. KANADE, J.)