High Court Kerala High Court

Vijayalakshmi vs Transworld Hire Purchase Indian … on 27 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
Vijayalakshmi vs Transworld Hire Purchase Indian … on 27 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3580 of 2010()


1. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. TRANSWORLD HIRE PURCHASE INDIAN LIMITED,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.MOHANLAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :27/08/2010

 O R D E R
                     P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
                   ---------------------------------
                  Crl.M.C.No.3580 OF 2010
                   ----------------------------------
           Dated this the 27th day of August, 2010

                            O R D E R

~~~~~~~~

The petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of

the First Class-III, Kollam, in S.T.No.46/2009 for offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act

and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months

and to pay Rs.3,86,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent

who prosecuted the revision petitioner before the trial court.

Feeling aggrieved, he preferred Criminal Appeal No.326/2010

before the Sessions Judge, Kollam along with an application for

suspending the sentence. The learned Sessions Judge while

allowing the application to suspend the sentence, imposed the

condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.35,000/-

with two solvent sureties each for the like amount and to

deposit 1/4th of the compensation amount. Aggrieved by the

condition directing the petitioner to deposit 1/4th of the

compensation amount, this petition was filed.

Crl.M.C.No.3580/2010 2

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I

find that the condition imposed is not at all harsh. Neither it is

unjust. On the other hand it is quite appropriate. In the above

circumstances, I find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the

petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted one

month’s time to deposit the amount mentioned in the order

impugned.

(P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE)

ps