High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2007-03-09Partly allowed

M.T. Sukumaran v. K. Mohandas and The State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.648 of 2007

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
Judgment Date: 2007-03-09
Court Decision / Holding: In part allowed. The petition is granted to the extent that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the compensation has already been paid by the petitioner to the respondent, further deposit need not be insisted, and such payment shall be reckoned as compliance with the direction to deposit. Default sentence shall not be executed if the Magistrate is so satisfied. The matter also contemplates releasing Rs. 5,000 deposited earlier, subject to verification of genuineness. The petitioner and respondent are to appear before the Magistrate to establish the payment.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M.T. Sukumaran

Respondents

K. Mohandas
The State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Babu S. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Abraham Samson
• Public Prosecutor Sri. Gikku Jacob

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 648 of 2007) decided by Justice R. Basant of the Kerala High Court on 9 March 2007. The revision petitioner, M.T. Sukumaran, sought exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash a sentence awarded for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, after a compromise between the parties. The trial court had convicted Sukumaran and directed him to pay Rs. 35,000 as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court, with a default sentence. Sukumaran argued that since the matter had been compounded, and post-revision composition could be accepted in appropriate cases to quash the sentence, the sentence ought to be set aside. The respondent/complainant conceded that the entire cheque amount had been paid, and the dispute centered on whether payment sufficed where the court had directed a deposit as compensation. The court cited a prior decision in Sabu George v. Home Secretary, noting that while post-revision composition may be accepted, it is not an invariable rule. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the petition-in-part: if the Magistrate is satisfied that payment has been made, further deposit need not be insisted, and the default sentence need not be executed. The order also contemplates releasing Rs. 5,000 deposited earlier, subject to evidence of genuineness.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Section 357(3) Cr.P.CSection 482 Cr.P.CSection 320(1) Cr.P.C

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings (Section 482) in extraordinary circumstances
Post-revision composition can be accepted in an appropriate case to quash a sentence under Section 138 NI Act (limited, not universal)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner urged that in view of the compromise and the principles laid down in post-revision composition cases, the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the sentence and avoid imprisonment, especially since the entire cheque amount had been paid and the court’s direction to deposit should be treated as satisfied through payment rather than deposit. It was urged that the earlier case (Sabu George) demonstrates that post-revision composition can be accepted in appropriate cases, though it is not an invariable rule.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent/complainant acknowledged the payment but argued the need to ensure proper compliance with the deposit directive. The State’s counsel emphasized that while post-revision composition is a consideration, it cannot be applied mindlessly to defeat statutory consequences. The magistrate’s compliance requirements and the possibility of withholding default imprisonment were central to the arguments.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sabu George v. Home Secretary	W.P.C.No.34540/06; Crl.M.A.No.8626/06; Crl.R.P.No.7/04; Crl.M.C.No.259/07 (dated 14/02/2007)	Partly Overruled / Limited	The decision was cited as acknowledging post-revision composition but cautioned that it is not an invariable principle and cannot justify mindless invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C; the present case limits its applicability.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M.T. Sukumaran v. K. Mohandas and The State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2007 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1928 Crl.MC.No. 648 of 2007() -----------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRRP.4352/2006 Dated 07/12/2006 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA .................... PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER - ------------ M.T.SUKUMARAN, S/O.KUNHATHAN VAIDYAR, NELLIKKATTUTHODIKA HOUSE, NADUVATH P.O, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------- 1. K.MOHANDAS, S/O.SANKARAN, KALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLEMPADAM, NILAMBUR.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. ## BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT, J** **----------------------** Crl.M.C.No.648 of 2007 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of March 2007 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He now faces the sentence of imprisonment till rising of court . There is also a further direction under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C that the petitioner must deposit the cheque amount of Rs.35,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of one month. The petitioner was granted time of three months to deposit the amount. 2. The petitioner has come to this court along with the respondent/complainant with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to report that the matter has been compounded between the parties and in these circumstances, the composition may be accepted and the petitioner may be saved of the obligation to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and to deposit the amount of Rs.35,000/-. Crl.M.C.No.648/07 2 3. It is true that this court, in Sabu George vs. Home Secretary [W.P.C.No.34540/06, Crl.M.A.No.8626/06 in [Crl.R.P.No.7/04 and Crl.M.C.No.259/07 dated 14/02/2007] has taken the view that a post revision composition can, in an appropriate case, be accepted to quash the sentence imposed. But that was a case where there was a substantive sentence of incarceration. That decision does not lay down an invariable principle that every such composition has got to be accepted. This court was persuaded to resort to the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction considering the harsh and insensitive consequence of the accused being compelled to undergo substantive sentence of imprisonment in prison even when composition was effected of the compoundable offence under Section 320(1) Cr.P.C. That cannot be justification for mindless and routine invocation of such powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused asserts and the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant concedes that the entire cheque amount of Rs.35,000/- has, now been, paid to the complainant and received by him. The petitioner is actually directed “ to deposit” the amount and not “ to pay” the amount. Because of this direction, Crl.M.C.No.648/07 3 the learned Magistrate may not accept payment as sufficient discharge of the liability under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and may insist that the petitioner may have to undergo the default sentence. Atleast it may be clarified that the payment admittedly made must be reckoned as sufficient compliance of the direction “to deposit” the compensation amount. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the prayer can be accepted to that limited extent. 4. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed in part. The petitioner and the respondent shall be entitled to appear before the learned Magistrate and satisfy the learned Magistrate that the compensation amount has already been paid by the petitioner/accused to the respondent/complainant. If the learned Magistrate is so satisfied, it shall not be necessary for the learned Magistrate to insist on deposit of the amount again before the learned Magistrate and such payment shall be reckoned as sufficient compliance in this case of the direction to deposit the amount. Default sentence shall not be executed if the learned Magistrate is so satisfied. Crl.M.C.No.648/07 4 5. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.5,000/- is in deposit before the learned Magistrate, the same having been deposited by the petitioner herein. The parties agree that the said amount can now be released to the petitioner. They can make the request before the learned Magistrate and if satisfied of the genuineness of that request, the said request shall also be accepted by the learned Magistrate. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** jsr Crl.M.C.No.648/07 5 Crl.M.C.No.648/07 6 ## **R.BASANT, J** C.R.R.P.No. ORDER 21ST DAY OF JULY 2006