JUDGMENT Amar Nath (Kesharwani), J. - Heard on IA No.16733/2022 an application u/S.5 of the Limitation Act. 2. Application is supported by an affidavit. 3. Considering the submissions made in the application and looking to the fact that the applicant is in custody since date of arrest i.e. 5.6.2018, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned. 4. Also heard on IA No.16734/2022 application for early hearing during vacation. On due consideration, application for early hearing during vacation is also allowed. 5. Heard on admission. 6. Admit. 7. Record of the courts below be requisitioned. 8. Also Heard on I.A. No.16732/2022, an application u/S.397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of the jail sentence. 9. The applicant has filed the present revision against the judgment dated 15.6.2022 passed by learned I Addl.Sessions Judge,Dhar in Criminal Appeal No.32/2021 whereby the judgment dated 21.10.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar in Cr.Case No.876/2018 has been maintained and he has been convicted u/s. 420 read with 120-B of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years RI and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation. 10. Prosecution case in brief is that in the year 2012, applicant alongwith co-accused Anurag S. Chouhan and others induced and instigated the complainant Dheeraj and several other ID holders by conducting a meeting with them in which co-accused told them that company namely Prithvi Utility Services Pvt. 11. Ltd. was running online advertising business and under the said false pretext invited them to take franchise of their company by purchasing ID's. Each ID cost Rs. 13,500/- through which by making online clicks, they will earn Rs. 3,000/- per month. Complainant alongwith his family members have purchased around 100 ID's and other persons have purchased around 2,500 IDs for which they have been provided user ID and passwords by the applicant. In the initial 2-3 months, complainant received money. However others ID holders worked only for a month and about 10 ID holders have not been paid the amount so promised whereafter ID's of all the ID holders have been closed. All of them contacted the local office where petitioner told them that some inquiry of income tax department is going on and their amount due will be paid within 2-3 days. All of them contacted the local office where petitioner told them that some inquiry of income tax department is going on and their amount due will be paid within 2-3 days. Later on, it has been informed that there was a blast in the head office at Baroda due to which certain computer got damaged. Faced with the said situation, complainant and other ID holders ran from pillar to post to contact Anurag Singh who was the Director of the said company who met them and gave two cheques of Rs. 1,80,19,800/- and another one of Rs. 2,77,000/-and when these two cheques were presented in the bank, the same got bounced due to insufficient balance in the account. Under this false pretext, petitioner alongwith Anurag Singh fraudulently taken amount to the tune of Rs. 3 to 4 crores from the complainant as well as other persons thereby misappropriating their hard earned money. 12. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial court as well as first appellate Court has committed error in holding the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC. He further submits that applicant was merely employee of the aforesaid company. It is apparent from the evidence produced on record that aforesaid company was registered company and initially paid the amount as agreed by the petitioner and co-accused Anurag Singh to the ID holders. Thereafter, a blast took place in the head office at Baroda due to which their computers were damaged and they could not paid the amount as agreed by them. Hence, they have not committed cheating with the ID holders and the offence punishable u/S 420 of IPC do not attract in the matter. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments passed in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mir Basit Ali Khan and Others [ 1971(2) SCC 96 ], The State of Kerala Vs. A. Pareed Pillai and Another[ AIR 1973 SC 326 ], Amarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab[1996 SCC Online P& H 1198]. Even otherwise, applicant has suffered about 4 1/2 years of incarceration out of 07 years sentence awarded. He further submits that learned trial Court has recorded the finding while convicting and sentencing the petitioners for 07 years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. State of Punjab[1996 SCC Online P& H 1198]. Even otherwise, applicant has suffered about 4 1/2 years of incarceration out of 07 years sentence awarded. He further submits that learned trial Court has recorded the finding while convicting and sentencing the petitioners for 07 years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Learned Appellate Court while confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court also directed the applicant to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,00,000/- which is not in accordance as per sub-clause (3) of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows: 357. Order to pay compensation. (1) When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied- (a)....... (b)....... (c)....... (d) ..... (2) ........ (3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced. 13. He further submits that in the instant case, fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- was already imposed as a part of sentence awarded by the trial Court vide impugned judgment. Therefore, in view of sub-clause (3) of Sec 357 of Cr.P.C., compensation awarded by the Appellate Court is not sustainable. To bolster his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Arjunan and Two Others Vs. State of Inspector of Police, A Rachalpur Police Station [1997 (1) CTC 525] 14. It is also submitted that there is no likelihood of final conclusion of this revision/petition in near future. Hence, it is prayed that application for suspension of jail sentence filed on behalf of the applicant be allowed. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State has opposed the prayer with the submission that applicant alongwith other co-accused persons have committed cheating with complainant and other ID holders. They have taken crores of money from innocent people under the garb of false promises of return of money and thereafter closed the company putting the ID holders in huge loss. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State has opposed the prayer with the submission that applicant alongwith other co-accused persons have committed cheating with complainant and other ID holders. They have taken crores of money from innocent people under the garb of false promises of return of money and thereafter closed the company putting the ID holders in huge loss. Cheques given by them also got dishonoured. Neither their principal amount has been refunded nor they got amount so promised by purchasing the ID's. Under such circumstances, no case for grant of suspension is made out. 16. Having considering the rival submissions, the material pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant, especially with regard to the period of custody i.e. 4 1/2 year which is more than 50% out of total sentence awarded of 07 years, so also the fact that there is no likelihood of conclusion of final hearing of this revision in near future, without commenting on merits of the case application for suspension of jail sentence of the applicant is allowed. The issue with regard to sustainability of the order passed by the Appellate Court with regard to award of compensation alongwith fine amount will be considered at the time of final hearing. 17. It is directed that execution of jail sentence of the applicant shall remain suspended during pendency of this revision subject to his depositing fine amount, if not already deposited and also subject to furnishing separate surety of compensation amount of Rs.60,00,000/- and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The applicant is directed to appear before the trial Court on 13.03.2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial court. 18. Accordingly, the I.A. No.16732/2022 stands disposed of. C.c. as per rules.