High Court Kerala High Court

Jose Varghese vs K.R.Reji on 4 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Jose Varghese vs K.R.Reji on 4 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2502 of 2008()



1. JOSE VARGHESE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. K.R.REJI
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :04/07/2008

 O R D E R
                           R. BASANT, J.
             -------------------------------------------------
                   Crl.M.C. No. 2502 of 2008
             -------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008

                                ORDER

The petitioner has been found guilty, convicted and

sentenced in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. He has preferred an appeal. The appeal has

been admitted. Execution of the sentence stands suspended

subject to conditions. The petitioner is aggrieved by one such

condition imposed – that he should pay/deposit an amount of

Rs.75,000/- as condition for suspension of sentence.

According to the petitioner, the condition imposed is harsh and

if insisted would deprive him of the right to prosecute the

appeal. He will be forced to go to prison even before his

appeal is taken up for consideration. In these circumstances,

it is prayed that the condition imposed may be set aside.

2. It is by now trite that an appellate court is still within

Crl.M.C. No. 2502 of 2008 -: 2 :-

its jurisdictional competence to direct payment of part of the

cheque amount while directing suspension of sentence in a

prosecution under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act. The only question is

whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, such

direction is not justified. The learned counsel for the petitioner

only submits that the petitioner is facing very difficult financial

situation and hence he is not able to make the payment. There

is no contention that the discretion exercised to direct deposit is

in itself bad for any reason. Of course, there is a submission that

the quantum deserves to be reduced.

3. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied

that the petitioner can be granted further time to make the

payment. To this extent alone, this Crl.M.C. can succeed.

4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed in part. Following

directions are issued:

(i) The petitioner shall pay half the amount of deposit i.e.,

an amount of Rs.37,500/- on or before 4/8/08. He shall have

time till 4/9/08 to pay the balance amount. If the petitioner is

unable to raise the balance amount, the petitioner can, while

depositing the amount of Rs.37,500/- on or before 4/8/08,

Crl.M.C. No. 2502 of 2008 -: 3 :-

request the learned Sessions Judge to take up his case out of

turn and dispose of the same. In that event, the learned

Sessions Judge shall ensure that the appeal itself is disposed of

by 4/9/08.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge