JUDGMENT - R.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Rule returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties. 2.The petitioner, who at the relevant time was a student, was offended because of an untoward act on the part of the respondent No. 2- Ajit Dalvi, who undoubtedly could be said to be a respectable and responsible person in the society, as he is working as a Lecturer in a college. Regular Criminal Case No. 250/ 88 was initiated against the present respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under sections 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that on 23rd November, 1988, while the petitioner was studying in the gallery of his house, the respondent No. 2 the accused for no justifiable reason and without any provocation, threw chilly powder in his eyes and thereby caused him physical agony as well as mental torture. On the same day, i.e. after about 1½ hours, necessary complaint was lodged in the police station and after the chargesheet was put up in the Court, the respondent no. 2 was prosecuted vide Regular Criminal Case No. 250/88, referred to above. 3.After completing the formalities as usual as regards the recording of the evidence and statement of the accused, the learned Judge, after hearing the arguments of both the sides, reached to the conclusion that the respondent No. 2 was guilty of an offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. However, at the same time, the learned Judge of Trial Court, by his judgment and order dated 20th September, 1990 granting benefit to the respondent No. 2 of Probation of Offenders Act, on his executing a bond of Rs. 500/- released him under section 4(1) of that Act, instead of passing sentence of imprisonment. 4.It appears that the present petitioner - Shrinath challenged the abovesaid judgment and order of the trial Court before the Sessions Court, Ahmednagar, vide Criminal Appeal No. 109/90, as he was dissatisfied with the order of releasing of accused only on the basis of Probation of Offenders Act since no sentence or fine was imposed on him. However, the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, who dealt with the matter, reached to the conclusion that since the appeal was not maintainable, the same came to be dismissed on that ground. However, the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, who dealt with the matter, reached to the conclusion that since the appeal was not maintainable, the same came to be dismissed on that ground. 5.Having realised the mistake, the present petitioner moved this Court for revision of the order of the Trial Court on the very same grounds as were raised by him before the Court below. 6.I have heard the matter at length and it is found that the matter in ordinary course would have been required to remit back to the trial Court for fresh trial and particularly on the point of sentence. However, instead of enhancing the punishment by remitting the matter, Shri Kulkarni, the learned Counsel suggested, if the matter could be settled by payment of certain compensation, it would be possible even to relieve the parties of further unnecessary botheration of attending the Court and to face trial again. The parties, therefore, agree that the accused would pay by way of compensation of Rs. 6,000/- to the complainant and so that there would not be any necessity to remand the matter. 7.The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 tried to suggest that it would amount to enhancement of punishment while exercising the revisional powers. I observe that payment of compensation under sections 357(1)(b) and 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to be awarded to the party or directing the party to pay the compensation to the victim would not be an enhancement of punishment, but it is an additional power invested in the Court to award the compensation to the victim while passing the judgment of conviction and the Court can in addition to conviction order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to the victim, who has suffered by the action of the accused. It would be worth to note that this power of Court to award compensation is not ancillary to the other sentences, but it is something in addition, to compensate the victim who has suffered the agony. For this proposition, I derive an advantage from the rulings reported in A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2127, in the case of (Hari Kishan v. State of Haryana)1, and (1990)4 Supreme Court Cases 731, in the case of (Sham Sunder v. Puran)2. For this proposition, I derive an advantage from the rulings reported in A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2127, in the case of (Hari Kishan v. State of Haryana)1, and (1990)4 Supreme Court Cases 731, in the case of (Sham Sunder v. Puran)2. I feel, this is an appropriate case, wherein such a constructive approach to some extent has to be adopted so as to let the guilty feel a pinch thereof instead of letting him go on a minor punishment like execution of a bond of good behaviour. I feel that this Court will be well justified if an amount of compensation is awarded to the petitioner in the present case so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way. A reasonable compensation, therefore, can be directed to be paid which is not by way of any punishment as prescribed under the law and, therefore, directing to pay the compensation would not amount to enhancement of punishment by this Court in any manner. It is no doubt true that the quantum of compensation, ordinarily be held to be determined taking into consideration the nature of the crime, justness of the claim by the victim, ability of the accused to pay and furthermore the status of the accused in the society, who was not supposed to take the law in his own hands. I have already observed above that the accused is well respectable person in the society whose job is to build the character of the students for the advancement of the country. 8.I have to reiterate here that this amount of Rs. 6,000/- which being the amount to be paid by way of compensation will not mean to be an additional punishment inflicted on the accused. It is also pertinent to note that in fact section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, also provides for the powers of the Court to require the offender to pay the compensation and costs. Having into consideration the provisions of this section also, I feel that it would be appropriate if certain compensation is directed to be paid to the applicant by the respondent No. 2. This would not in any way amount to enhancement of sentence or punishment awarded to the alleged accused. 9.The parties have filed a purshis expressing that the accused shall pay Rs. This would not in any way amount to enhancement of sentence or punishment awarded to the alleged accused. 9.The parties have filed a purshis expressing that the accused shall pay Rs. 6,000/- by way of compensation to the petitioner and according to me, it is no doubt a very laudable arrangement arrived at between the parties instead of litigating the matter any further. Since the parties have agreed to the abovesaid arrangement, I do not find it necessary to send the matter back to the trial Court for considering the point of appropriate punishment. Keeping in view that this Court in its revisional powers would not be in a position to enhance the punishment, but since the matter is being settled between the parties in the above manner, which also does not amount to enhancement of punishment, the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the trial Court will have to be modified to that extent. As the purshis is on the record, the order of the Court below is modified as under : "Accused - Ajit Bhagwan Dalvi is hereby convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and instead of sentencing him for jail, he is released under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, on the condition that the accused would execute a bond of Rs. 500./- for a period of one year with one surety. It is further ordered that accused- Ajit Bhagwan Dalvi is hereby directed under sections 357(1)(b) and 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to pay Rs. 6,000/- by way of compensation to the original complainant - Shrinath, (as settled by the parties amongst themselves) within four weeks from today. The rest of the part of the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the trial Court shall stand as it is." Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Rule made absolute. *****