IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 337 of 2007()
1. KOMALAVALLY, W/O.SUKUMARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOY JOHN, S/O.JOHN, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :09/02/2007
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
---------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C. 337 OF 2007
---------------------------------------------
Dt. FEBRUARY 9, 2006
ORDER
Petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under sec.138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.
The sentence imposed on her was simple imprisonment for six months. There
was no order for fine nor any order for compensation under sec.357(3) Cr.P.C.
Challenging the conviction entered and the sentence passed against her the
petitioner filed Crl.A.No.27/2007 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. As per
Crl.M.P.712/2007 she sought for a stay of suspension of the sentence. As per
Annexure-I order dt.11.1.2007 the sentence was suspended on deposit of
Rs.80,000/- within one month towards the cheque amount and on execution of a
bond for Rs.50,000/- with two sureties before the trial court. It is the above
order which is assailed in this Crl.M.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a case where a
sentence of imprisonment alone is imposed on the accused, the maximum that
can happen is a dismissal of her appeal in which case she will have to undergo
imprisonment only. Hence the direction to deposit Rs.80,000/- passed by the
lower appellate court is illegal. I cannot agree. It is now well settled that even in
a case where a sentence of imprisonment alone has been passed, the appellate
court can while finally disposing of the appeal modify the sentence by reducing
CRL.M.C.337/2007 2
the imprisonment and directing payment of compensation under sec.357(3)
Cr.P.C. If such an order can be passed at the stage of final disposal of the
appeal, there is no reason why a direction to pay a part of the cheque amount
cannot be granted at the interlocutory stage.
3. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a direction to
deposit Rs.80,000/- appears to be on the higher side. In as much as Annexure-I
order was passed at the ex parte stage, there is no question of hearing the
complainant. Hence I am dispensing with notice to the 1st
respondent/complainant. Annexure-I order is accordingly modified directing the
petitioner/appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.25000/- within two weeks from today
and to execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties to the
satisfaction of the trial court. Annexure-I order in the appeal will stand modified
to the above extent. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.
(V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
mt/-