1 CRA-78-2011.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 78 OF 2011 Ram Ganesh Rai ... Petitioner (Orig. accused) vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. K.K.Pandey,Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. U.V.Kejriwal, APP, for the respondent No.1- State. Mr. B.R.Patil, Advocate, for the respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 25th April, 2011. P.C. 1. In the order dated 20.4.2011, I had noted that in view of the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in conviction. However, a question of law was posed as to whether there could be imposition of sentence in default to pay the compensation amount. 2. Today, the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant relies upon K.A.Abbas H.S.A. vs. Sabu Joseph & Anr. (2010) 6 SCC 230 wherein the Supreme Court has clearly held that as the amount of compensation awarded under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. can be recovered like a fine amount and as in 2 CRA-78-2011.sxw default to pay the fine amount, the accused can also be directed to undergo imprisonment, in default to pay compensation amount also, he can be directed to undergo imprisonment. In view of this, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Sessions Court imposing simple imprisonment for six months in default to pay the compensation amount of Rs.6,50,000/-. 3. In view of this, there is no substance in the present Revision Application. Revision Application stands dismissed. Ad-interim relief stands vacated. 4. Request to stay this order stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)