[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 144/2006 FAKRUDDIN & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN DATE: 02.04.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Mahendra Goyal for the accused-petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint before the trial Court stating therein that she married with the petitioner No.1 Fakruddin about 5 years ago and dowry articles were demanded at the time of marriage. It was further alleged that the accused- petitioners harassed and tortured her with regard to demand of dowry. The aforesaid complaint was sent by the trial Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner No.1 only under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. On protest petition being filed by the complainant, the trial Court taken cognizance against the remaining co- accused petitioners under Section 498-A IPC. Vide judgment dated 17.02.2003 the trial Court convicted the accused-petitioners under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine [2] to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 498-A IPC and simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 406 IPC. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court dated 17.02.2003, the accused-petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was partly allowed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kishangarbas (Alwar) vide impugned judgment dated 21.01.2006 and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner No.1 Fakruddin under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, acquitted the petitioner No. 2 Isab and petitioner No.3 Jubeda from the offence under Section 406 IPC but maintained their conviction under Section 498-A IPC and granted them the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act and also imposed a total fine of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation upon the accused- petitioners (Rs. 30,000/- upon petitioner No.1 Fakruddin and Rs. 10,000/- each upon petitioner No.2 Isab and petitioner No.3 Jubeda) under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It was also directed by the Appellate Court that in default of payment of compensation amount, the accused-petitioner No.1 Fakruddin will have to undergo the sentence as awarded by the trial Court [3] under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and the accused- petitioner No.2 Isab and accused-petitioner No.3 Jubeda will have to undergo the sentence as awarded by the trial Court under Section 498-A IPC, as mentioned herein above. The impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court has been challenged by the accused-petitioners to the limited extent that the order passed by the Appellate Court that in default of payment of compensation amount, the accused-petitioners will have to undergo the sentence as awarded by the trial Court under Section 498- and 406 IPC, the same be quashed and set-aside and the compensation amount be also reduced. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners submits that the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act has been extended in favour of the accused-petitioners but the compensation which has been awarded by the Appellate Court under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, in default of making payment of compensation, the same can be recovered as per the provisions of Sections 421 and 422 Cr.P.C. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Laxman Vs. The State of Rajasthan, reported in 1995(3) WLC (Raj.) 304, wherein in para 9 the co- [4] ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:- “9. Section 5 of the Act lays down that the Court directing the release of an offender under Section 3 or Section 4, may, if it thinks fit, make at the same time a further order directing him to pay such compensation as the court thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to any person by the commission of offence and that such amount ordered to be paid, may be recovered as a fine in accordance with the provisions of sections 421 and 422 Cr.P.C. The recovery of fine can be made either by issuance of a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender or by issuing 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. The order of the learned trial Judge that in default of payment of compensation the appellant shall undergo R.I. for two years is patently illegal and contrary to the provisions of section 5 of the Act as also the provisions of sections 421 & 422 Cr.P.C. which cannot be sustained.” I have heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court and also perused the judgment referred before this Court. The accused-petitioners by way of this revision petition, have challenged the quantum of compensation as well as the sentence awarded in [5] default of making payment of compensation. So far as in lieu of default of making payment of compensation amount, the same can be recovered as fine in accordance with the provisions of Sections 421 and 422 Cr.P.C. The recovery of fine can be made either by issuance of a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender or by issuing 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. As per the learned counsel, the accused- petitioners have already deposited Rs. 5,000/- pursuant to the order dated 20.02.2006 passed by this Court and requested that the amount of compensation awarded to the tune of total Rs. 50,000/-, the same be reduced. Having considered the request made on behalf of the accused petitioners and after going through the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, the compensation as awarded by the Appellate Court to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- appears to be excessive and in the interest of justice, the same is reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-. In case the accused-petitioners deposit the balance compensation amount of Rs. 35,000/- within a period of two months, no recovery [6] proceeding is required to be initiated against the accused-petitioners under Sections 421 and 422 Cr.P.C., failing which the respondents are at liberty to recover the same from the accused- petitioners by initiating proceedings, as observed herein above. In view of the observations made herein above, the impugned judgment dated 21.01.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kishangarhbas, District Alwar is accordingly modified. The criminal revision petition stands partly allowed. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/