IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3064 of 2009()
1. BENNY PETER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUKUMARAN NAIR R.V.,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.SARVOTHAMAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :24/09/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.3064 OF 2009
------------------------------------------
Dated 24th September 2009
O R D E R
Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for
the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Annexure-A1 judgment shows that
petitioner was convicted and sentenced to a fine of
Rs.1,10,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for
three months. It also provides that on realisation of
fine, the entire fine amount is to be paid to the
first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1)
of Code of Criminal Procedure. Though petitioner filed
appeal and later a revision, both the appeal and
revision were dismissed.
2. According to the petitioner as the
direction was to deposit fine of Rs.1,10,000/- which
is to be paid to first respondent as compensation,
petitioner did not deposit the fine before the court
but directly paid fine to the first respondent, which
is liable to be paid to first respondent as
compensation. Learned Magistrate without considering
CRMC 3064/09
2
this aspect issued non bailable warrant holding that
the fine was not deposited. Petitioner filed
C.M.P.1241/2009 to re-call warrant. But under
Annexure-A4 order, learned Magistrate dismissed the
petition holding that as the fine was not deposited
and he has to undergo default sentence.
3. Learned counsel appearing for
petitioner and learned counsel appearing for first
respondent were heard.
4. Though strictly speaking Annexure-A1
judgment which was confirmed in appeal and revision
only provides for deposit of fine amount before the
court, it is clear that said amount on deposit is to
be paid to first respondent as compensation. In such
circumstances, when first respondent himself appears
and admitted that he has already received the entire
amount, which he is entitled to, under the judgment,
it is not in the interest of justice to direct the
petitioner to undergo the default sentence. It would
have been better for the petitioner to seek a
clarification from the court before paying
compensation to first respondent. But as first
respondent has admitted that the amount has already
CRMC 3064/09
3
been received, it is not in the interest of justice
to stand on technicalities and direct the petitioner
to undergo the default sentence.
5. In such circumstances, Annexure-A4
order is quashed. In view of the submission by the
learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
it is recorded that the petitioner has paid the fine
amount, which is liable to be paid to the first
respondent as compensation.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.