ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) A peculiar situation has arisen. In a sessions trial five persons were found guilty under section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and other sections thereof including section 27 of the Arms Act. They were convicted and taken into custody. They were then sentenced on 28.8.2007, inter alia, for life imprisonment and they were further directed to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each for offences under Sections 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and further Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Two appeals were filed. Criminal Appeal(DB) No.1159 of 2007 was filed by Basudeo Mandal and Dinesh Mandal. In the said appeal initially prayer for bail was rejected. Thereafter, it appears that the present appeal, i.e., Criminal Appeal(DB) No.1340 of 2007 was filed on behalf of Bharat Mandal, Kishori Mandal and Upendra Mandal. In this appeal by order dated 4.1.2008 these three appellants were granted bail but no order was passed in regard to the fine as imposed. These three appellants having got bail, in the earlier appeal, an application was filed for grant of bail. That was considered by order dated 22.5.2008 in Criminal Appeal(DB) no.1159 of 2007. Considering those three persons in the connected case have been granted bail, these two persons were also granted bail but when the question of stay of realization of fine came, Court noted that accused persons had assaulted the informant in such a manner that he had lost vision in both the eyes and keeping in view the aforesaid heavy fine was imposed. In those special circumstances, Court declined to stay the payment of fine as imposed by the trial court. 3. As noted earlier in this appeal there was no order with regard to the fine though the three appellants were granted bail. It appears that interlocutory application was filed for stay of fine. By order dated 18.1.2011 passed in the present case, i.e., Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1340 of 2007 a Division Bench of this Court noticing that earlier though bail was granted but no order regarding fine was noted directed stay of realization of fine till disposal of the appeal. It appears that the order refusing to stay of fine as passed in the analogous appeal was not brought to the notice of the Court. It appears that the order refusing to stay of fine as passed in the analogous appeal was not brought to the notice of the Court. Thus, in relation to the same matter arising from the same judgment we have two orders in respect of two sets of appeals. In one appeal stay of realization of fine has been specifically refused and in the present analogous appeal realization of fine has been stayed till disposal of the appeal. 4. Now on behalf of the victim a prayer is made that the order for stay of realization of fine be recalled to be made consistent with the earlier order passed in the analogous appeal. It is said that this fine is by way of compensation for loss of vision and should be paid immediately. On the other hand, Sri Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that in terms of Section 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the moment an appeal is filed against the order of conviction and sentence which includes fine then automatically the fine gets stayed and there is no necessity even for a prayer of stay of fine. The legislature which empowered the Court to impose the fine has provided for an automatic stay of fine till disposal of the appeal. His submission is that once statutory stay of fine imposed was provided, then neither any prayer has to be made nor any order contrary to the statute can be passed. This has caused a peculiar situation. We therefore proposed to decide this issue so that there is clarity and unanimity in approach. 5. There is no dispute that a criminal court under the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure has the jurisdiction to impose fine and compensation. There are pecuniary limits to the imposition of fine, depending upon the Court ( Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to Magistrate ) but so far as compensation is concerned there is no limit. Thus, upon conclusion of a trial a criminal court has jurisdiction to hold a person guilty of offence and convict. It further has jurisdiction to award sentence as provided by law. It then has jurisdiction to impose fine within its pecuniary jurisdiction or award compensation in terms of section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if no fine is imposed. It further has jurisdiction to award sentence as provided by law. It then has jurisdiction to impose fine within its pecuniary jurisdiction or award compensation in terms of section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if no fine is imposed. Once a criminal court exercises its jurisdiction, as indicated above, the statute which authorizes the criminal court to do so being the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for a statutory remedy in the shape of an appeal. So far as the order of conviction and the sentence is concerned, it is dealt with under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers jurisdiction to the appellate court to stay the execution of sentence or to suspend the sentence and to release him on bail. We have gone through the entire provision of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It does not even remotely refer to fine or compensation. In our view, the reason is simple because so far as fine or compensation is concerned that is dealt with by Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with its Bihar amendment. We may now refer to sub-Section (2) of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. “ (2) If the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal be presented, before the decision of the appeal. ” The argument of Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant is based squarely upon the literal interpretation from the Section. In our view, the submission as made by Sri Verma has to be accepted. On the plain reading of sub Section (2) of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure we find that there is absolutely no ambiguity in the provision as engrafted by the legislature. It clearly stipulates firstly, that no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed. Thus, this stops any court from enforcing payment for the period in which appeal could be filed. It then secondly provides that the stay of action of realization or payment would continue if an appeal is presented till the decision of the appeal. Thus, this stops any court from enforcing payment for the period in which appeal could be filed. It then secondly provides that the stay of action of realization or payment would continue if an appeal is presented till the decision of the appeal. “ Decision of the appeal ” would only mean the final judgment in the appeal and not any order at any interlocutory stage because that would not be the decision of the appeal. Thus, on the plain reading of Section 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a fine imposed, would automatically get stayed firstly for the period which is available to file appeal and once the appeal is filed then till the decision of the appeal. That is the mandate of the legislature itself, clear and unambiguous. The situation would be different , if instead of awarding fine, in terms of Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a compensation only is awarded. In such a case, the appellate court has judicial discretion to stay or not to stay the compensation so awarded depending upon the facts of the case under consideration. 6. Thus, in our view, while presenting an appeal against a conviction which is coupled with orders of fine neither any prayer for stay of realization of fine has to be made nor any such order is required to be passed by the Court which is in seisin of the appeal, for the legislature itself has provided for an automatic stay thereof upon presentation of an appeal. The order imposing fine would automatically get stayed upon presentation of appeal and would abide by the final decision of the appeal by the appellate court. 7. Thus, in view of the interpretation and the scope of Section 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as given by us today, the realization of fine in the present case would automatically remain stayed till the final disposal of the appeal. Thus, the prayer of the victim for recalling of the order of stay of fine already granted, is of no consequence. The prayer cannot be entertained in view of the statutory mandate. It is accordingly rejected. The interlocutory application thus stands disposed of.