“24. With the Code of 1973 came an interesting change. Sub-section (3) was added to Section 357, which was an entirely new provision making it clear that the court may, when passing judgment, order the accused to pay by way of compensation such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been sentenced. This is provided that the court imposes a sentence of which fine does not form a part. Another important change was made in Section 421(1). The proviso to the said sub-section was altered because the 41st Law Commission Report, in recommending amendments to the old Section 386 stated, after noticing the Bombay High Court judgment in Digambar case [Digambar Kashinath Bhawarthi v. Emperor, 1934 SCC OnLine Bom 56 : ILR (1935) 59 Bom 350 : AIR 1935 Bom 160 : 1935 Cri LJ 1034] as follows:

“28.10. Fine should be recoverable when compensation has been ordered.—We notice that in the above judgment the fact that the complainant has been allotted part of the fine was not considered a relevant special reason for purposes of the proviso as it stands. A contumacious offender should not, in our opinion, be permitted to deprive the aggrieved party of the small compensation awarded to it by the device of undergoing the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. When an order under Section 545 has been passed for payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine, recovery of the fine should be pursued, and in such cases, the fact that the sentence of imprisonment in default has been fully undergone should not be a bar to the issue of a warrant for levy of the fine. We recommend that the proviso to Section 386(1) should make this clear.”

Kumaran v. State of Kerala, (2017) 7 SCC 471