Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala and Meera Bai

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2014/30TH PHALGUNA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1012 of 2014 ()** ## **--------------------------CC.NO. 947/2002 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM** **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **--------------------------------------** **MURALEEDHARAN,S/O.KUMARAN, ELENJICKAL VEEDU, MENAMPALLY MURI, PATHIYOOR P.O.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.ANIL** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT :** **----------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. MEERA BAI, D/O.SARADA AMMAL, KOCHUMADATHIL, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH R2 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 1012 of 2014 () -------------------------------------APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: -------------------------------------------ANNEX-1. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15/8/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPSONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE** **==> picture [15 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> sts<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.1012 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of March, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner who is the accused in C.C.No.947/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam, to give a direction to the magistrate court to record the payment of compensation made out of court and allow the petitioner to serve the remaining sentence, if any 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 C.C.No.947/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam. The above case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint fled by the 2[nd] respondent herein, alleging offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). He was convicted and sentenced by the judicial First Class Magistrate, 2 Crl. M.C. No.1012 of 2014 Kayamkulam, for the said offence. Though, he filed appeal before the Sessions Court, that was also dismissed. The petitioner preferred criminal revision petition before this court as Crl.R.P.No.1070/2009 and this court by judgment dated 24.03.2009 confirmed the order of conviction passed by the court below but modified the sentence to fine of ₹ 50,000/- alone and directed to pay the fine amount to the complainant, as compensation under Section 357(1) of the ‘Code’. 3. It was mentioned that, the amount can either be deposited or directly paid to the complainant within five months from the date of order and produce the receipt before the court below and it was not done, then he was directed to undergo default sentence of three months simple imprisonment. He could not pay the amount within time but he had paid the amount later. But the lower court is not prepared to accept the payment. So, he has no other remedy except to approach this court, seeking the following Crl. M.C. No.1012 of 2014 3 ## relief: “In the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the magistrate to receive Annexure-1 receipt by condoning the delay caused to production of the Annexure-1 receipt, in the interest of justice.” 4. As directed by this court, 2[nd] respondent in person appeared thorough counsel and admitted that she had received the compensation amount as directed to be paid to her. 5. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner was found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and later this was confirmed by the appellate court, but when revision is filed, this court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to fine of 50,000/- alone and that was also₹ directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. It is further ordered in the order of this court that, the petitioner was either permitted to deposit the amount before the court below within five months or pay the amount to the complainant directly and produce a receipt 4 Crl. M.C. No.1012 of 2014 before the court below, if this is not done within the time stipulated, he will have to undergo imprisonment of three months as default sentence. Admittedly the amount was not paid within the time stipulated, but only paid later, which is evident from Annexure-1 receipt, which was dated 15.08.2009. According to the petitioner this is not being accepted by the court below. 6. In the decision reported in **Beena v. Balakrishnan Nair and Another (2010 (2) KHC 851** , this court has held that, if the fine is imposed and compensation was directed to be paid to the complainant, out of fine amount, then if the fine amount is directly paid to the complainant, then the lower court can, on production of receipt and satisfaction, record that payment, as deposit of fine and deserves of the amount as compensation in the respective fine register to be maintained in that court and close the case. The same view has been reiterated in the Division Bench of this court, in the decision reported in 5 Crl. M.C. No.1012 of 2014 **Sivanhutty v. John Thomas 2012 (4) KLT 21** . That was a case where the question arose as to whether this court can entertain an application to give direction as stated above under Section 482 of the ‘Code’ and the Division Bench has held that it can be possible. So considering the above dictum laid down in the above two decisions, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows: If the petitioner surrenders before the court below on 22.04.2014 and produces original receipt showing the payment of the amount to the complainant, as directed by this court in the revision and that was acknowledged by the complainant on her appearance before that court, then the leaned magistrate is directed to recored those payment in the fine register and treat this as compliance of the order passed by this court in the revision and close the case, as directed in Beena's and Sivankutty's cases Crl. M.C. No.1012 of 2014 6 (supra). The 2[nd] respondent is also directed to appear before that court along with the accused to acknowledge the payment before the court below on that date. Till then, the coercive steps, if any taken against the petitioner by the lower court is directed to be kept in abeyance. If he did not surrender on that day and comply with this direction, then the lower court is entitled to revive the warrant and execute the same against the petitioner to procure and make him comply with the direction, as directed by this court. With the above direction and observation the petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately. Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss