Kerala High Court
C.P. John vs Fr. T.V. George on 5 June, 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 4856 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2024 IN CRA NO.66 OF 2024 OF
DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/2ND APPELLANT:
C.P. JOHN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. PHILIPOSE
MANAGING DIRECTOR C.V.P. REALTORES [PVT] LTD.,
THIRUVALLA, RESIDING AT CHANDRAVIRUTHIL HOUSE,
KULAKKAD, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101
BY ADV JAI GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT, STATE & 1ST APPELLANT:
1 FR. T.V. GEORGE
THADATHIL HOUSE CHERUKULANJI P.O.,
RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689673
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
3 C.V.P. REALTORES [PVT] LTD
KURISHUKAVALA, THIRUVALLA
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER
JOHN C.P. CVP TOWER, CROSS JUNCTION
THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101
BY ADV. NOUSHAD K. A.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.4856 of 2024
-:2:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4856 of 2024
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner is the second accused in S.T.No.802/2008 on the files of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thiruvalla. 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, he was directed to pay a
compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In the appeal filed as Crl.A.No.66 of 2024,
the learned Sessions Judge had by the impugned order dated 01.04.2024
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 Sri.Jai George, appearing for the petitioner as well as
Sri.Noushad.K.A, the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Considering the nature of the impugned order, I am of the view
that notice to the first and third respondent can be dispensed with.
4. In the decision in Sreenivasan P. v. Babu Raj [2024 KHC
Online 270], the 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.
(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-A4 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. Accordingly, the order dated 01.04.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.2325 of
2024 in Crl.A.No.66 of 2024 on the files of the Sessions Court,
Pathanamthitta 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
three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance
with law.
7. The Registry of this Court shall intimate this order to the learned
Sessions Judge for compliance.
Criminal miscellaneous case is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
Jka/05.06.24.
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGEMENT DATED
24.9.2010 PASSED BY THE JFCM, THIRUVALLA
IN S.T.NO: 1852/2007 AND S.T. NO. 802/2008
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGEMENT DATED
27.8.2021 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 277 OF
2010 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.276/2010 ON
THE FILES OF COURT OF SESSIONS,
PATHANAMTHITTA
Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED
Annexure A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.4.2024
IN CRL.M.P. NO:2325/2024 IN CRL.A. NO.
66/2024 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT
PATHANAMTHITTA
