Kerala High Court
Rasheed P.S vs State Of Kerala on 2 August, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6562 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.04.2024 IN CRA NO.40 OF 2024
OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2024 IN CC NO.543 OF 2019 OF CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THODUPUZHA
PETITIONER:
RASHEED P.S
AGED 55 YEARS
PROPRIETOR KRIMSON TRADERS,
21/93, KOTTACHALIL BUILDING,
AVOLY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA.
RESIDING AT PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,
ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686562
BY ADVS.
JERRY MATHEW
DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN
DEVIKA K.R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 M/S INFINIX TRADERS
2ND FLOOR, CHARALIL BUILDING,
NEAR MUNICIPAL PRIVATE BUS STAND,
THODUPUZHA P.O.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR. ASHWIN A THOTTUPURAM,
PIN - 685584
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. ASHI M.C (PP)
CRL.MC NO. 6562 OF 2024
2
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 6562 OF 2024
3
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.6562 of 2024
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.543 of 2019 on the
files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thodupuzha.
He was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I.Act'). As per
Annexure A1 judgment, petitioner was directed to pay a
compensation of Rs.2,76,236/-. In the appeal filed as
Crl.A.No.40 of 2024, the learned Sessions Judge had by the
impugned order dated 25.04.2024 suspended the sentence
and also directed 20% of the compensation amount to be
deposited under Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Petitioner is
aggrieved by the direction to deposit the aforesaid amount.
2. I have heard Adv.Jerry Mathew, appearing for the
petitioner as well as Sri.Ashi M.C., the learned Public
Prosecutor.
CRL.MC NO. 6562 OF 2024
3. Considering the nature of the impugned order, I am of
the view that notice to the second respondent can be
dispensed with.
4. In the decision in Sreenivasan P. v. Babu Raj [2024
KHC Online 270], a Division Bench of this Court after
considering the decision in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P.State
Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. [(2023) 10 SCC
446] held that reasons ought to be mentioned for exercising
the discretion to impose the condition directing deposit of a
percentage of the compensation amount. In Sreenivasan's
case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held as
follows :-
(a) Under Section 148 of the N.I.Act, the Appellate
Court has a discretion to either order the appellant to
deposit a portion of the fine or compensation awarded
by the trial court or to waive such deposit. In either
event, since it would be exercising a statutory
discretion, the Appellate Court would be legally obliged
to furnish reasons for its decision so as to
unambiguously indicate that its discretion was
exercised keeping in mind the object of the statutory
provision.
CRL.MC NO. 6562 OF 2024
(b) If the Appellate Court, pursuant to the exercise
of its discretion, finds that the appellant is required to
deposit a portion of the fine or compensation awarded
by the trial court pending disposal of the appeal, then
the amount directed to be deposited cannot be less
than an amount equivalent to 20% of the fine or
compensation awarded by the trial court.
(c) If the Appellate Court chooses to direct the
appellant to deposit any sum which is more than 20%
of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court,
then it would be obliged to give further reasons for
directing the deposit of such amounts as are in excess
of the minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation
awarded by the trial court.
5. It is evident, on a reading of Annexure-2 impugned
order that the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation
amount was imposed by the Sessions Court without
indicating any reason. Hence the impugned order to that
extent is liable to be set aside and a fresh consideration be
directed.
6. Though the petitoner had sought for an extension of
time to deposit the amount and the Court granted extension
till 24-07-2024, I am of the view that since the impugned
order Annexure-2 does not give any reason for directing the
CRL.MC NO. 6562 OF 2024
deposit of 20% of the compensation amounts it is only
appropriate that the said order, to the extent it directs deposit
be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the order dated 25.04.2024 in
Crl.M.P.No.1719 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.40 of 2024 on the files of
the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, to the extent it directs
deposit of 20% of the compensation amount is set aside. The
learned Sessions Judge shall reconsider the matter regarding
deposit under Section 148 of the N.I. Act afresh, within four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in
accordance with law.
Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AJM
CRL.MC NO. 6562 OF 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CC
543/2019 ON THE FILES OF
HON’BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, THODUPUZHA DATED
26.03.2024.
Annexure 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.
M.P 1719/2024 IN CRL.A. NO.40/2024
PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA DATED
25.04.2024.
Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN
CRL.A. NO.40/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE
HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT,
THODUPUZHA DATED 24.07.2024.
Annexure 4 THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE
PETITIONER’S MOTHER.
