Suresh.K.R. vs State Of Kerala on 15 November, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3406 of 2007()


1. SURESH.K.R., S/O.RAMACHANDRAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. C.R.VIDYADHARAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.S.DIVAKARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :15/11/2007

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   Crl.M.C.Nos.3406, 3409 &
                           3428 of 2007
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           Dated this the 15th day of November, 2007

                               O R D E R

The common petitioner in these three Crl.M.Cs. has been

found guilty, convicted and sentenced in three separate

prosecutions, all under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He faces the

substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of court in all the

three cases. He has been directed to pay compensation in all the

three cases. Default sentences are also prescribed in the event of

non-payment of the default sentence. The verdicts of guilty,

conviction and sentence have all become final. Time was fixed

for payment of compensation amounts. Amounts were not paid

within the time stipulated. Extension of time has been granted.

Inspite of that, amount has not been paid. It is in this context

that the petitioner has come before this Court with these three

petitions with an identical prayer.

2. The short prayer is that the petitioner may not be

compelled to undergo the default sentence before attempt is made

Crl.M.C.Nos.3406, 3409 & 3428 of 2007
2

to recover the fine amount from the movable and immovable properties

of the petitioner under Section 421 Cr.P.C.

3. It is not the law at all that the default sentence can be executed

only after the steps to recover the amount under Section 421 Cr.P.C.

fail to bear fruit. No principle or precedent is cited as authority for

such a theory. In fact the law as declared in Sajkumar v. Soman

Pillai (2006 (3) KLT 679) is that even if the petitioner undergoes the

default sentence, if the liability to pay compensation is not discharged,

steps under Section 421 Cr.P.C. can continue.

4. In these circumstances I find no merit whatsoever in the

prayer that execution of the default sentences must wait till steps for

recovery under Section 421 Cr.P.C. are completed.

5. These Crl.M.Cs. are accordingly dismissed.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm