Kerala High Court
Prasannakumar vs Beena on 29 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 4556 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2024 ININ CRL.M.P.NO.666 OF 2024 IN
CRA NO.44 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM
PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS :
1 PRASANNAKUMAR
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, NALLAVEETTIL,
VADAKKUM MURI MEKKU, KUTHIRAPANTHI,
THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O,
KOLLAM, PIN - 690523
2 VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. CHELLAPPAN, PUTHENTHARAYIL,
VADAKKUM MURI MEKKU, KUTHIRAPANTHI,
THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY,P.O,
KOLLAM, PIN - 690523
BY ADVS.
SAJU J PANICKER
KURIAN K JOSE
RESPONDENTS :
1 BEENA
AGED 50 YEARS
D/O. PRASHOBHITHA, KANDATHIL,
VADAKKUM MURI MEKKU, KUTHIRAPANTHI,
THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O,
KOLLAM, PIN - 690523
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
BY SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRL.MC NO. 4556 OF 2024
2
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 4556 OF 2024
3
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Crl.M.C.No.4556 of 2024
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2024
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in S.T.No.885 of 2016 on the files of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Karunagappally. She was
convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I.Act'). As per Annexure-I
judgment, they were directed to pay a fine of Rs.9,00,000/- each. In the
appeal filed as Crl.A.No.44 of 2024, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
had by the impugned order dated 01.04.2024, suspended the sentence
and also directed 20% of the fine amount to be deposited under Section
148 of the N.I. Act. Petitioners are aggrieved by the direction to deposit
the aforesaid amount.
2. I have heard Adv.Saju J.Panicker, Jani, appearing for the
petitioners 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 respondent can be dispensed with.
CRL.MC NO. 4556 OF 2024
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-4 impugned order that
the condition to deposit 20% of the fine amount was imposed by the
CRL.MC NO. 4556 OF 2024
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 01.04.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.666 of 2024
in Crl.A.No.44 of 2024 on the files of the Addl. Sessions Court-I, Kollam
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 shall intimate this order to the learned Sessions Judge
for compliance.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE
RKM
CRL.MC NO. 4556 OF 2024
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/02/2024 IN
ST NO.885/2016 OF THE JFCM COURT,
KARUNAGAPPALLY
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CRL.APPEAL
NO.44/2024 FILED BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS COURT-I, KOLLAM
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID PETITION CRL. M. P.
NO.666/2024 IN CRL APPEAL NO.44/2024 FILED
BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I,
KOLLAM
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/04/2024 IN
CRL. M.P. NO.666/2024 IN CRL APPEAL
NO.44/2024 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT-I, KOLLAM
