C.K. Rajmohan v. C.P. Saseendran and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/27TH PHALGUNA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4539 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------STC. NO.620/2000 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KANNUR. .....** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **----------------------------------** **C.K. RAJMOHAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.V. KUNHIRAMAN, CHANDROTH HOUSE, KAITHERIPOYIL, P.O. PATHIRIYAD, THALASSERY.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------** **1. C.P. SASEENDRAN, PADMA AGENCIES, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR-670 003.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.MARY RANZOM LOUIZ R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.N. SURESH.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4539 of 2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE-A1. THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRRP NO.577/2012 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **rs.** K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.4539 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of March, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner, who is the accused in S.T.C.No.620/2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, seeking certain directions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the ‘Code’). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the accused in STC No.620/2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, which was taken on file on the basis of a private compliant filed by the first respondent herein, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). 3. After trial, the learned magistrate found the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo simple Crl.M.C. No.4539 of 2013 2 imprisonment for three months and also to pay a compensation of 90,000/-. The petitioner filed appeal₹ before the Sessions court and the appellate Court confirmed the order of conviction and also the sentence of payment of compensation but modified the substantive sentence to, imprisonment till rising of the court. Though, he filed a revision petition before this court as Crl.R.P.No.577/2012, this court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence as modified by the Sessions Court, but granted three months time for the petitioner to pay the amount, by Annexure-A1 order. It was also mentioned in the order that, if any amount has been deposited, that also can be given credit and the balance compensation need alone be paid. It is alleged in the petition that, while suspending the sentence, the Sessions Court directed the petitioner to deposit ₹ 16,000/- and that amount was deposited. The amount could not be paid or deposited as directed as per the Annexure-A1 judgment of this court. Now he had paid the Crl.M.C. No.4539 of 2013 3 amount to the first respondent and he filed this application, seeking the following reliefs: i) Issue direction to the learned Judicial 1[st] Class Magistrate No.1, Kannur to release the amount already deposited by the petitioner as per the order in CRA. No.544/2002 and Crl.R.P.No.577/2012 to the 1[st] respondent and to record the satisfaction of the balance amount through the 1[st] respondent directly or through his counsel, ii) Issue direction directing the learned Magistrate to keep in abeyance the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner and iii) Issue any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. First respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the first respondent has received the entire compensation awarded by the courts below. Now the petitioner wants that, the amount deposited by him has to be directed to be paid to him. 5. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent, the case was taken on file as STC No.620/2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, against the Crl.M.C. No.4539 of 2013 4 petitioner under Section 138 of the Act and after trial, he was found guilty under Section 138 of the Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a compensation of ₹ 90,000/- to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also an admitted fact that, in the appeal filed by the appellant, the order of conviction and direction to pay compensation were confirmed, but the substantive sentence of three months imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court and the attempt on the part of the petitioner, challenging the same by filing a revision before this court was of no avail, as it was dismissed as per Annexure-A1 order, granting three months time for the petitioner to deposit the amount or pay the amount. Now the case of the petitioner is that, though the time is over, he had already paid the compensation to the complainant/ first respondent directly and that was admitted by the first respondent as well. So he wants only a Crl.M.C. No.4539 of 2013 5 direction to be given to the magistrate to record this fact and allow him to serve the sentence till rising of the court, as awarded by the appellate court and confirmed by this court and also wanted to return the amounts deposited by him as directed by the appellate court and by this court, which he had said to have deposited. 6. In the decision reported in **Beena v. Balakrishnan Nair (2010 (2) KLT 1017)** , this court has held that, if the fine is imposed and out of the fine, compensation was ordered and if that compensation amount was directly paid to the complainant instead of depositing the same before the court, then the magistrate can record the payment, as satisfaction of fine ordered to be paid as part of the sentence by entering the same in the fine register and allow the accused to serve the balance portion of the sentence, if any to be served by him. The same view has been upheld by the Division Bench of this court, in **Sivankutty v. Thomas (2012 (4) KLT 21)** . In this case Crl.M.C. No.4539 of 2013 6 the first respondent appeared though counsel and submitted that, he had received the compensation amount. So under the circumstances and also in view of the principles laid down in the above decisions, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows: (i) If the accused produces before the court below, the receipt for payment of the amount directly to the complainant and the complainant also appears before the court below and acknowledges the receipt of the same, then the learned magistrate is directed to record the payment of the amount in the respective register and treat this as compliance of the order passed by the appellate court, confirmed by this court for payment of the compensation amount under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the complainant. (ii) If the accused appeared before the court Crl.M.C. No.4539 of 2013 7 below, as stated above and produced the receipt for payment of the amount to the complainant and the complainant acknowledges the same by appearing before that court on that day, then the learned magistrate is directed to allow the petitioner to serve the substantive sentence of till rising of court. (iii) If the petitioner applies to that court for refund of the amount if any deposited, as directed by the appellate court or by this court, then the learned magistrate is directed to refund that amount to the petitioner. The petitioner as well as the first respondent are directed to appear before the court below on 29.03.2014. With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, by fax so as to reach the court below on 28.03.2014. Coercive steps, if any taken by Crl.M.C. No.4539 of 2013 8 the courts below is directed to be kept in abeyance, till 29.03.2014. If he did not appear as directed, then the lower court is at liberty to proceed with the coercive steps to procure the presence of the petitioner in execution of the sentence. Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss