Kerala High Court
Bijili Mohammed vs Balu Muralikrishna on 13 September, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2024:KER:70052
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 22ND BHADRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 7772 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2023 IN C.M.P.NO.82/2023
IN CRA NO.148 OF 2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALA
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2023 IN ST NO.305 OF
2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KANJIRAPPALLY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BIJILI MOHAMMED
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.AHMMED KHAN,
PALACKAL HOUSE,
KANJIRAPPALLY P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686507
BY ADVS.
C.HARINDRAMOHAN NAIR
SEBASTIAN JOSEPH (KURISUMMOOTTIL)
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 BALU MURALIKRISHNA
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.M.MURALIDHARAKUMAR,
THOTTUVAYIL HOUSE, THAMPALAKADU P.O.,
KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686507
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV. C.N. PRABHAKARAN,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:70052
Crl.M.C.No.7772 of 2024
-:2:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.7772 of 2024
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.305/2018 on the files of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally. 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.5,50,000/-. In the appeal filed as Crl.A.No.148 of
2023, the learned Sessions Judge had by the impugned order dated
08.08.2023 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.C.Harindramohan Nair appearing for the
petitioner as well as Sri. C.N.Prabhakaran, 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
2024:KER:70052
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-A3 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.
2024:KER:70052
6. Accordingly, the order dated 08.08.2023 in C.M.P.No.82/2023
in Crl.A.No.148/2023 on the files of the Sessions Court,Pala, 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.
The Registry of this Court shall intimate this order to the learned
Sessions Judge for compliance.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
jka/13.09.24
2024:KER:70052
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure -A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/3/2023
IN S.T.NO. 305/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,
KANJIRAPPALLY
Annexure - A2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN
CRL.APPEAL NO.148/2023 OF THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, PALA DATED
31.07.2023
Annexure - A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 8/8/2023
PASSED IN C.M.P.NO.82/2023 IN CRL.APPEAL
NO.148/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, PALA
