High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of accordingly.

V.RADHAKRISHNAN v. P.THANKARAJ AND STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 1448 of 2012
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date
2014-10-27
Court Decision / Holding
The High Court disposed of the petition with directions that the Magistrate should acknowledge receipt of Rs. 1,38,000 as per Annexure-A1 if the complainant files a six-week statement, treat this as sufficient compliance with the revision directions, and make appropriate entries in the fine register. The petitioner is then to remit the balance amount before the court, and the balance amount should be deposited in the State Exchequer. If compliant, the matter may be closed and any arrest warrants stayed during the period. Annexure-A3 was set aside to enable compliance.
Final Disposition
Disposed of accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • V. Radhakrishnan

Respondents

  • P. Thankaraj
  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri Nagaraj Narayanan
  • • Sri Saijo Hassan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor SMT. V.A. Jasmine

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 1448/2012) before the Kerala High Court, seated in Ernakulam, decided by Judge C.T. Ravikumar. The petitioner, V. Radhakrishnan, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) in S.T. No. 3033/2007 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakkad. His appeal (Crl.A. No. 711 of 2008) was dismissed, and a revision (Crl.R.P. No. 3014/2010) enhanced the fine from Rs. 1,31,000 to Rs. 1,41,700 and directed deposit of this amount in the trial court. The revision also ordered compensation of Rs. 1,38,000 under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. to be paid to the complainant, with the balance to be deposited in the State Exchequer, failing which arrest warrants could be issued. The petitioner later asserted there had been a post-revisional composition with the complainant, with Rs. 1,38,000 paid directly to the complainant from the deposited funds, not through the court. He sought permission to deposit the remaining balance in court. Relying on Beena v. Balakrishnan Nair and other authorities, the High Court held that although a revision is disposed of on merits, payment under Section 362 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as realisation and compensation; however, having regard to the payments already made and the evidence produced, the court directed the Magistrate to acknowledge receipt of Rs. 1,38,000 as per Annexure-A1, treat it as compliance if a statement is filed within six weeks, permit deposit of the balance, and close the matter upon proper accounting. Warrant(s) of arrest were kept in abeyance pending compliance. Annexures A1–A3 were considered in the disposal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ActSection 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.Section 362 Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contended that after the revision petition was disposed of, a post-revisional composition had been entered into with the complainant and a portion of the amount was paid directly to the complainant, not deposited in court. He sought permission to deposit the balance amount in court to comply with Annexure-A1 and to treat the payment already made as sufficient compliance, so that the matter could be closed.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, represented by the Public Prosecutor for the State, opposed or did not actively resist; the core issue was whether a post-revisional settlement could be acted upon and whether payment made outside the court could satisfy the revision directions. The court ultimately relied on Beena v. Balakrishnan Nair and related precedents to determine the appropriate procedure.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Beena v. Balakrishnan Nair2010(2) KLT 1017PositiveCited as the principal precedent supporting the view that post-revisional payments can be treated as compliance and necessitate appropriate entries in the fine register.
Kripal Singh v. Balvinder(2004 Cr.L.J. 3786)Mentioned OnlyCited as a decision relied upon by Beena; used to illustrate related principles but not the primary basis of the ruling.
Sudheer Kumar v. Kunhiraman2008 (1) KLT 168Mentioned OnlyDivision Bench decision referenced in Beena’s context; used as supportive authority.

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 V.RADHAKRISHNAN v. P.THANKARAJ AND 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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/5TH KARTHIKA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 1448 of 2012 () --------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ----------------------------- V.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 65 YEARS S/O.VASU, PUDUMA READYMADES, CROWN BUILDINGS OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN ## RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: -------------------------------------------------- ## 1.P.THANKARAJ S/O.PAZHANIYAPPAN, PROPRIETOR PAZHANIYAPPA CHITS & FINANCE, K.P.D. BUILDING OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. ## 2.STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.A.JASMINE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.1448/12 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : ANNEXURE A1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2010 IN CRL.R.P.NO.3014/2010 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE A2- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2011 IN CMP.142/11 IN S.T.NO.3033/07 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE III, PALAKKAD. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== Crl.M.C. No.1448 OF 2012 ==========================** Dated this the 27[th] day of October, 2014 ## **ORDER** Petitioner, the accused in S.T.No.3033 of 2007 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He unsuccessfully attempted an appeal as Crl.A.No.711 of 2008 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palakkad and thereafter, moved Crl.R.P.No.3014 of 2010 before this Court. Annexure-A1 is the order passed therein. As per Annexure-A1 order, the said revision petition was disposed of confirming the conviction and enhancing the fine amount from `1,31,000 to `1,41,700. The petitioner herein/revision petitioner was also directed to deposit the said amount of fine in the trial court within the time stipulated therein and in case of failure to deposit the said amount, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. On realisation of the amount of fine, a sum of **Crl.M.C.1448/2012** 2 `1,38,000 was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C and the remaining amount was directed to be deposited in the State Exchequer. In case of failure on the part of the revision petitioner to deposit the fine amount, the trial court was directed to take coercive steps to execute the sentence and to secure his presence and to realise the fine amount. The case of the petitioner is that a post revisional composition was entered into between the petitioner and the complainant (first respondent herein) and as is evident from Annexure-A2, an amount of `1,38,000 which was directed to be paid to the first respondent as per Annexure-A1 order from the amount deposited in court, was directly paid to the first respondent instead of depositing the said amount in the court. The petitioner filed CMP No.142 of 2011 permitting him to deposit the balance amount payable with the State Exchequer to the trial court in tune with the direction in Annexure-A1 order. The trial court found that in the light of Annexure-A1 order, the petitioner herein was to deposit the entire amount of `141700 before the court and the **Crl.M.C.1448/2012** 3 payment of `1,38,000 could have been effected after the deposit of the entire amount before the court. The trial court ultimately dismissed CMP No.142 of 2011 as per Annexure-A3 and thereby refused to allow the petitioner to deposit the balance amount in court in order to comply with Annexure-A1 order. It is the said order that is under challenge in this Crl.M.C. 2. Though notice was issued to the first respondent in this proceedings, the first respondent did not enter appearance to resist the case. Though fresh steps were taken for the purpose of serving notice to first respondent, service could not be completed thereafter. Later, notice was sent to the first respondent through C.I of Police, Palakkad and it was duly served on the first respondent. The question whether a post revisional composition entered into between the petitioner and complainant could be acted upon was considered in the decision in _**Beena v. Balakrishnan Nair**_ **[2010(2) KLT 1017]** relying on a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court in **Crl.M.C.1448/2012** 4 _**Kripal Singh v. Balvinder**_ **(2004 Cr.L.J. 3786)** and also taking note of the Division Bench decision of this Court in _**Sudheer Kumar v. Kunhiraman**_ **[2008 (1) KLT 168].** It was found that after disposal of the revision petition on merits ignoring the payment under section 362 Cr.P.C a compensation under section 147 of the NI Act could not be accepted by the High Court and record acquittal of the petitioner. Even after holding so, taking into account the fact that the petitioners therein had already paid the amount payable to the complainant therein and production of a document revealing the said factum before this court, the revision petition was disposed of by this court in **Beena'** s case (supra). It was held that the proper procedure was to deposit the fine amount in the court concerned so that the court could effect payment of the amount directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant as provided under section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., after making necessary entries in the fine register to that court. Further this Court in **Beena** 's cae (supra), taking note of the fact that the petitioners therein paid the amount to the complainant therein to **Crl.M.C.1448/2012** 5 satisfy the order in the revision petition directed the learned Magistrate to acknowledge the receipt of the amount of fine. It was held that in case of filing of such a statement, to accept the same as sufficient compliance with the directions in the order in revision petition and to make necessary entries in the fine register as if it is realised and paid to the concerned complainant and close the matter. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and taking into account the aforesaid decision, I am inclined to dispose of this petition as hereunder:- The learned Magistrate is directed to acknowledge the receipt of fine ordered to be paid as per Annexure-A1 order in Crl.R.P.No.3014 of 2010 in case the first respondent herein, the complainant in S.T.No.3033 of 2007 files a statement within a period of six weeks from today before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad acknowledging the receipt of amount of fine viz., `1,38,000 directed to be paid as per Annexure-A1 order. In such eventuality, it **Crl.M.C.1448/2012** 6 has to be treated as sufficient compliance with the directions thereunder and appropriate entries shall be made in the fine register as if the fine is realised and paid to the first respondent, complainant. The petitioner shall then, be permitted to remit the balance amount by virtue of Annexure-A1 order before the court and after making proper entry in the fine register, the said amount shall be deposited in the State Exchequer to comply with the directions in Annexure A1 order, in accordance with law. In case of compliance with the aforesaid directions, the matter can be closed. In order to enable the petitioner to comply with the directions, Annexure-A3 is set aside. Warrant of arrest, if any, issued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance during the aforementioned period or till a statement is filed in the trial court and consequential deposit of the balance amount and necessary entry in the fine register is made, within the above stipulated period. Disposed of accordingly. **Sd/(JUDGE)** **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** ## **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1448/2012** 7 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **Crl.M.C.1448/2012** 8 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**