Kerala High Court
Dr. K. Prasad vs M/S.Thundiyath Bankers on 6 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
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 4725 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER 16.05.2024 IN CRMP.NO.3245 OF 2024 IN CRA NO.78
OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT IN ST NO.91 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -III, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/ APPELLANT :
DR. K. PRASAD
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.KUNJURAMAN, ANAPARACKAL HOUSE,
VALLICODE VILLAGE, VAZHAMUTTAM,
VAZHAMUTTAM MURI, V-KOTTAYAM P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DIST, PIN - 689646
BY ADVS.
JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
MANJU JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS :
1 M/S.THUNDIYATH BANKERS
ARANMULA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER JOJI J.
VARGHESE ,REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
THOMAS JOSEPH AGED 60 YEARS,AGRICULTURISTS, BENCY
COTTAGE, KANNAMKARA,VALAMCHUZHI, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN -
689533
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY SRI. RENJITH T.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 4725 OF 2024
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Crl.M.C.No.4725 of 2024
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in S.T.No. 91/2017 on the files of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court-III, Pathanamthitta. 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. 18,00,950/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Nine
Hundred and Fifty only). In the appeal filed as Crl.Appeal No.78/2024,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge had by the impugned order dated
16.05.2024 suspended the sentence and also directed 20% of the fine 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.John Joseph (Roy), appearing for the petitioner as
well as Sri.Renjith T.R., the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Considering the nature of the impugned order, I am of the view that
notice to the first 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.
CRL.MC NO. 4725 OF 2024
[(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-A2 impugned order that the
condition to deposit 20% of the fine 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.
Accordingly, the order dated 16.05.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.3245 of 2024 in
Crl.A.No.78 of 2024 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court,
CRL.MC NO. 4725 OF 2024
Pathanamthitta to the extent it directs deposit of 20% of the fine 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.
The Registry of this Court shall intimate this order to the learned
Sessions Judge for compliance.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE
RKM
CRL.MC NO. 4725 OF 2024
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN S.T.NO.91 OF
2017 OF THE JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-III, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 23-04-2024
Annexure A2 THE ORIGINAL ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.3245 OF
2024 IN CRL. A.NO.78 OF 2024 OF THE
VACATION COURT PATHANAMTHITTA, THE ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-II,
PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 16-05-2024
