' The petitioner was accused of commission of offence under section 324, P.P.C. Vide case F.I.R.
No,50 dated 21-2-1998 at Police Station Hazro. It was alleged that he perpetuated a murderous assault on respondent No,3. He was sent up for trial. He was charged and after the trial found guilty as charged. He was accordingly convicted by the learned trial Court under section 324, P.P.C. He was sentenced to four years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,50,000, in default to undergo one year's R.I. He was directed to pay compensation in the matter of sum of Rs,1,00,000 to the respondent No,3, in default thereof to undergo six months' S.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was granted. The learned Sessions Judge, Attock, dismissed the appeal of the convict on 9-5-2002. The learned Sessions Judge, however, reduced the amount of compensation to Rs,50,000. The petitioner then filed Criminal Revision No,149 of 2002 in this Court. Vide judgment dated 22-8-2002 the conviction was upheld. In the matter of sentence it was observed that the petitioner has served out, his entire sentence as he was arrested on 2-4-1999. Reference was then made to the contention of the petitioner's learned counsel that he is serving out simple imprisonment in lieu of fine and compensation. His Lordship while maintaining the sentence reduced the same to the one already undergone. The petitioner was ordered to be A released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. Since the compensation had not been paid to the respondent No,3 he filed an application before the learned trial Magistrate for recovery of the same and for its payment to him.
This application was dismissed on 4-2-2003. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed a criminal revision which has been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Attock on 8-4-2003.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impact of the said judgment of this Court was that the judgment of the learned trial Court as modified by the learned Appellate Court in the matter of payment of compensation stood wiped out. According to the learned counsel at the relevant time, the petitioner had served out the substantive sentence and was undergoing imprisonment in lieu of fine and compensation and since he was ordered to be released, the effect is that he stands absolved of his liability to pay the compensation.
3. I have given some thought to the said contention of the learned. Counsel and find myself unable to agree with him. Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Is reproduced hereunder:-- "544-A. Compensation to the heirs of the person killed, etc.--- (1) Whenever a person is convicted of an offence in the commission whereof the death of, or hurt, injury, or mental anguish or psychological damage, to any person is caused, or damage to or loss or destruction of any property is caused, the Court shall, when convicting such person, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing it otherwise directs, order the person convicted to pay to the heirs of the person whose death has been caused, or to the person hurt or injured, or to the person to whom mental anguish or psychological damage has been caused, or to the owner of the property damaged, lost or destroyed, as the case may be, such compensation as the Court may determine having regard to the circumstances of the case.
(2) The compensation payable under subsection (1) shall be recoverable as an arrears of land revenue and the Court may further order that, in default of payment or of recovery as aforesaid the person ordered to pay such compensation shall suffer imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or if it be a Court of the Magistrate of the third class, for a period not exceeding thirty days.
(3) The compensation payable under subsection (1) shall be in addition to any sentence which the Court may impose for the offence of which the person directed to pay compensation has been convicted.
(4) The provisions of subsections (2-B), (2-C) and (4) of section 250, shall, as far as may be, apply to payment of compensation under this section.
(5) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by a Court when exercising its powers of revision."
' It will be seen that this provision of law lays down in mandatory terms that where a person is convicted of an offence in the commission whereof, inter alia, hurt or injury is caused to any person then unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the Court otherwise directs, it shall order the convict to pay, inter alia, to the person hurt or injured, said compensation as the Court may determine having regard to the circumstances of the case. Subsection (2) describes the mode of recovery of the said amount. It is to be recovered as an arrear of land revenue and the said Court may further' order that it default of payment or of recovery as aforesaid the person ordered to pay such compensation shall suffer the imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months.
Subsection (3) further clarifies the matter by providing that the compensation payable under subsection (1) shall be in addition to any sentence which the Court may impose for the offence of which the person directed to pay compensation has been convicted.
4. Now the said judgment dated 16-2-2002 of the learned trial Magistrate, as modified by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 9-5-2002 is to the following effect:--
(i) The petitioner was convicted under section 324,, P.P.C.
(ii) He was sentenced to undergo four years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,50,000 and in default to undergo one year's S.I.
(iii) The petitioner was directed to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the respondent No,3.
5. Now according to the judgment dated 22-8-2002 of this Court in Criminal Revision No,149 of 2002 the said conviction and sentence was maintained. The sentence, however, was reduced to the one already undergone.
6. Now the said section 544-A(3), Cr.P.C. Lays down in clear terms that the payment of compensation shall be in addition to any sentence which the Court may impose. Thus upon a plain reading of section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The compensation directed to be paid under subsection (1) is relatable to the conviction of the petitioner irrespective of the sentence that has been imposed.
The compensation payable is in addition to any sentence. This Court had only reduced the sentence to the one already undergone. Thus the compensation remains payable.
7. Learned counsel then contends that since in default of payment of compensation the petitioner was undergoing simple imprisonment and he was ordered to be released, it means that he had already undergone the simple imprisonment in default of payment of compensation. I am afraid the said contention is baseless. Subsection (2) clearly is to the effect that the amount of compensation is to be recovered as an arrear of land revenue and the Court may further order that in default of payment or recovery as aforesaid the said person shall suffer imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. Thus the said provision of law ensures that the compensation has to be paid in any case and is to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
8. No other point has been urged. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.