IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 30 of 2011()
1. K.DEVAN, S/O.RAMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. SREE GOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE CO(P)LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.JAYARAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :31/01/2011
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
Crl. M.C. No.30 of 2011
====================================
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011
O R D E R
Petitioner is accused in C.C. No.184 of 2009 of the court of
learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad for offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment and deposit of
`.7,48,193/-. He preferred Crl. Appeal No.584 of 2010 in the court
of learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad. Learned Sessions Judge
while suspending the sentence as per order dated October 19,
2010 on Crl. M.P. No.3372 of 2010 directed petitioner to deposit
1/10th of the amount of compensation in the trial court within six
weeks from the date of that order. Petitioner got extension of
time for deposit till 31.12.2010 vide order dated December 1, 2010
on Crl. M.P. No.3826 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No.584 of 2010. In this
proceedings it is contended that learned Sessions Judge could not
have imposed a condition while suspending the sentence. Learned
counsel requested that in case that contention is not accepted the
amount to be deposited may be modified and further time may be
granted for such deposit. Learned counsel invited my attention to
CRL.M.C. No. 30 of 2011
-: 2 :-
Annexures A4 ad A5, Medical Certificates issued from Jubilee
Missions Medical College & Research Institute, Thrissur and
Amritha Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi.
2. I am unable to accept the contention that learned
Sessions Judge had no authority to impose a condition by way of
deposit of compensation while suspending the sentence. A
Division Bench of this Court in Suhra Kunhimon v. Harif
(1999 [1] KLT 463) has upheld that power of the appellate court.
Hence the contention that learned Sessions Judge went wrong in
imposing a condition by directing deposit of a portion of
compensation cannot be accepted. Moreover petitioner himself
has sought extension of time for deposit of the amount.
3. Then the question is whether time for deposit of
compensation is to be extended. By Annexure- A3, order dated
December 1, 2010 time for deposit of compensation has been
extended till 31.12.2010. Annexures A4 and A5 are produced to
show that petitioner is undergoing treatment. But that does not
absolve petitioner from the liability of depositing the amount.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am inclined to give
petitioner time till 15.03.2011 to deposit the compensation as
CRL.M.C. No. 30 of 2011
-: 3 :-
ordered by the learned Sessions Judge.
Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of
granting petitioner time till 15.03.2011 to deposit compensation
as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal No.584 of
2010.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv