Kerala High Court
Saji vs Sukumaran on 28 May, 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
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 3801 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2024 IN CRA NO.14 OF 2024 OF
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA ARISING OUT
OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.01.2024 IN ST NO.310 OF 2014 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NEDUMKANDOM
PETITIONERS/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SAJI
AGED 63 YEARS
PAZHAYIDATH HOUSE,
RAMAKKALAMEDU P.O,
RAMAKKALAMEDU, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685552
BY ADVS.
B.SURJITH
RAHANA JOSE
LIJO JOSEPH
AKSHAYA REGHU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 SUKUMARAN
AGED 63 YEARS
CHEMPANPURAYIDATHIL (H),
PETHOOTY P.O, SANTHANPARA,
UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685619
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
Crl.M.C.No.3801 of 2024
-:2:-
BY ADV.
ASHI M.C,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.3801 of 2024
-:3:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3801 of 2024
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.310 of 2024 on the files of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nedumkandam. 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.4,08,500/-. In the appeal filed as Crl.A.No.14 of
2024, the learned Sessions Judge had by the impugned order dated
21.02.2024 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.B.Surjith, appearing for the petitioner as well as
Sri. Ahi.M.C, 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. [(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 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 21.02.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.589 of
2024 in Crl.A.No.14 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
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/28.05.24.
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.01.2024
IN S.T.NO.310/2014 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
NEDUMKANDAM
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
21.02.2024 IN CRL.M.P.NO.589/2024 IN
CRL.APPEAL 14/2024 ON THE FILES OF THE
COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, THODUPUZHA
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
02.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KARUNAPURAM
