• Today: November 03, 2025

r-mohan-v-a-k-vijaya-kumar-section-357-3-crpc-default-sentence

03 November, 2025
351
Section 357(3) CrPC Default Sentence Explained — R. Mohan v. A.K. Vijaya Kumar | The Law Easy

R. Mohan v. A.K. Vijaya Kumar

Section 357(3) CrPC • Default sentence for compensation • Cheque dishonour (S.138 NI Act)

Supreme Court of India 2012 (final) (2011) 12 MAD CK 0238 Criminal Procedure ~6 min read
Author: Gulzar Hashmi India Published: 2 Nov 2025
Illustration representing compensation enforcement under Section 357(3) CrPC
```
CASE_TITLE: R. Mohan v. A.K. Vijaya Kumar PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 357(3) CrPC, default sentence, compensation SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: S.138 NI Act, S.64 IPC, S.421 CrPC, cheque dishonour PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-02 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India slug: r-mohan-v-a-k-vijaya-kumar-section-357-3-crpc-default-sentence

Quick Summary

This case confirms that courts can add a default sentence (simple imprisonment) to make sure an accused actually pays compensation ordered under Section 357(3) CrPC. The Supreme Court restored the default sentence that the High Court had removed. Without such a clause, victims would struggle to recover compensation and the order would lose bite.

Issues

  • Can a court impose a separate sentence in default of non-payment of compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC?
  • Is it lawful to award imprisonment when CrPC does not expressly state a default clause for compensation?

Rules

  • Section 357(3) CrPC: Court may order compensation where no fine is imposed.
  • Section 421 CrPC: Procedures to recover fines; applied analogously to compensation.
  • Section 64 IPC: Imprisonment can follow non-payment of fines.

Compensation must be real and enforceable. A default sentence is a valid and necessary deterrent to ensure compliance and quick relief for victims.

Case facts shown as a simple legal timeline

Facts (Timeline)

10 Sep 2001: Accused and his wife borrow ₹5,00,000 from the complainant and sign a promissory note.

14 May 2002: Accused issues cheque for ₹5,00,000 to repay principal. Cheque is dishonoured for “insufficient funds”.

24 May 2002: After statutory notice under S.138 NI Act, accused replies: says loan was ₹3,00,000, already repaid; cheque was only security.

Complaint filed under S.200 CrPC; criminal proceedings begin.

Trial (Egmore, Chennai): Conviction under S.138 NI Act + 3 months simple imprisonment + ₹5,00,000 compensation u/s 357(3) CrPC. Default clause: 2 months simple imprisonment if compensation not paid.

High Court (Madras): Conviction and substantive sentence upheld; default sentence removed.

Supreme Court (2012): Conviction affirmed. Default sentence restored to enforce compensation.

Arguments

Appellant (Accused)

  • Cheque was given as security; amount claimed is inflated.
  • CrPC does not expressly provide a default imprisonment for compensation alone.
  • Removing default clause is proper since compensation is not a “fine”.

Respondent (Complainant)

  • Compensation without enforcement is ineffective.
  • Courts use S.421 CrPC and the logic of S.64 IPC to secure payment.
  • Default sentence is necessary to deter non-payment and protect the victim.
Gavel representing the Supreme Court judgment

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and three months’ simple imprisonment. It restored the default sentence: if the accused did not pay ₹5,00,000 compensation, he must undergo an additional two months of simple imprisonment.

Rationale: default imprisonment makes the compensation order meaningful and promptly enforceable; otherwise, the victim would be forced into fresh proceedings.

Ratio

Courts may lawfully attach a default sentence to compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC. Recovery mechanisms under Section 421 CrPC and principles from Section 64 IPC support this. The aim is effective victim compensation and deterrence against non-payment.

Why It Matters

  • Gives real teeth to compensation orders under CrPC.
  • Reduces delay and extra litigation for victims of financial offences.
  • Fits cheque dishonour prosecutions where restitution is vital.

Key Takeaways

Default sentence can accompany compensation under S.357(3) CrPC.

Enforcement logic draws on S.421 CrPC and S.64 IPC.

Protects complainants in NI Act cases.

Without default imprisonment, compensation can be ignored.

Promotes speedy, practical justice.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Pay, or Stay”

  1. Order: Court orders compensation under S.357(3) CrPC.
  2. Enforce: Use S.421 CrPC / logic of S.64 IPC.
  3. Default: If unpaid, default imprisonment applies.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can courts attach default imprisonment to compensation under S.357(3) CrPC?

Rule: S.357(3) CrPC (compensation), S.421 CrPC (recovery), S.64 IPC (default for fine).

Application: To make compensation real, the court may warn of simple imprisonment on non-payment; this aligns with recovery mechanisms and deterrence goals.

Conclusion: Yes. The Supreme Court restored the default sentence and affirmed the conviction.

Glossary

Default Sentence
Extra imprisonment ordered if compensation is not paid.
S.357(3) CrPC
Lets courts order compensation even when no fine is imposed.
S.421 CrPC
Provides methods to recover money like a fine (warrants, attachment).
S.64 IPC
Allows default imprisonment for non-payment of fines; logic informs compensation enforcement.
S.138 NI Act
Offence for cheque dishonour due to insufficient funds.

FAQs

Courts can add default imprisonment to enforce compensation under S.357(3) CrPC.

No. S.357(3) allows compensation even when no fine is imposed.

Through procedures akin to fine recovery under S.421 CrPC; default imprisonment backs it up.

Because restitution is central; compensation ensures the complainant actually receives the money due.

No. It is a judicial choice, used to secure payment where appropriate.
Reviewed by The Law Easy
Criminal Procedure Compensation NI Act
Top
```

Comment

Nothing for now