Sheena Babu vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12564 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
         WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1943
                         CRL.MC NO. 2169 OF 2021
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGEMENT IN CRA 263/2019 OF DISTRICT COURT &
                    SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACUSED:

             SHEENA BABU
0




             AGED 43 YEARS
             W/O. BABU, THALIYAZHCHA HOUSE, KUNJAINY DESOM, EDAVILANGU
             VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

             BY ADV M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

     2       JOSHY
             S/O. ARAVINDAKSHAN, MANGATTIL ANAPUZHA, METHALA VILLAGE,
             KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 664.



             PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA M.N



THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.05.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                2
CRL.MC NO. 2169 OF 2021



                                          ORDER

The petitioner herein is the accused in ST.No.78 of

2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,

Kodungallur, in which he was found guilty for offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and convicted. This was carried in

Appeal before the learned Sessions Judge as Crl.Appeal

No.263 of 2019. In Crl.M.P.No.3906 of 2019, the learned

Sessions Judge suspended the sentence subject to the

condition that she shall execute a bond and also

deposit one fourth of the cheque amount. The petitioner

has approached this Court on a premise that the

petitioner is in extreme financial difficulties and

that in spite of all earnest attempt she found it

impossible to raise the above amount. Though the

learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the

impugned order in extenso, I am not attracted by the

various contentions set up by the learned counsel for

CRL.MC NO. 2169 OF 2021

the petitioner. However, having regard to the financial

difficulties now set up by the petitioner, I am

inclined to grant two months tine from today to the

petitioner to comply with the direction contained in

Annexure-B. Accordingly, Crl.M.C is disposed of with a

direction that the petitioner shall comply with the

direction contained in Annexure-B within a period of

two months from today. All coercive steps against the

petitioner shall be kept in abeyance during the above

period.

Crl.M.C is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE R.AV

CRL.MC NO. 2169 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2169/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

ANNEXURE A THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.T.78/2017 PASSED BY THE JFCM COURT-II, KODUNGALLUR DATED 03.10.2019.

ANNEXURE B THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MP.3906/2019 IN CRL. APPEAL 263/2019 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR DATED 02.11.2019.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS           NIL