Kerala High Court
Abid K.K vs Rabiya Pookottu on 27 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 9550 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:80142
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 9550 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.09.2025 IN Crl.A
NO.352 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT
(ATROCITIES & SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & CHILDREN),
KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
ABID K.K
AGED 45 YEARS
KOOMULLATHIL (HOUSE), CHERUPURAM P.O,
CHERUPURAM AMSOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673507
BY ADVS. SHRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
SHRI.RANJIT BABU
SMT.POOJA K.S.
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINAT AND STATE:
1 RABIYA POOKOTTU
AGED 41 YEARS
W/O. ASEES, MEKKARA THAZHEKKUNIYIL (HOUSE),
THUNERI DESOM, VATAKKARA TALUK, TUNERI P.O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673505
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 9550 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:80142
ORDER
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2025
The petitioner is the appellant in Crl.Appeal
No.352/2025 on the file of the Court of Session, Kozhikode
('Appellate Court', in short) which was filed challenging
Annexure A1 judgment passed by the Court of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate-II, Nadapuram ('Trial Court', in short)
in S.T.No.61/2024, convicting and sentencing the petitioner
for allegedly committing an offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act', in short).
2. Aggrieved by Annexure A1 judgment, the petitioner
has filed Crl.Appeal No.352/2025 and C.M.P.No.2662/2025
to suspend the execution of the sentence. By the impugned
Annexure A2 order, the Appellate Court has suspended the
sentence subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits
20% of the fine amount within 45 days. There is no reason
mentioned in Annexure A2 order as laid down by this Court
in Sreenivasan P vs. Babu Raj [2024 (2) KHC 621].
Annexure A2 order to the extend it directs the petitioner to
2025:KER:80142
deposit 20% of the fine amount is erroneous and
unsustainable. Hence, the Crl.M.C.
3. Heard: the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Since the
Crl.M.C is filed with respect to Annexure A2 order which
pertains to the suspension of sentence, I dispense with
notice to the 1st respondent.
4. In Sreenivasan P' case (supra), a Division Bench of
this Court after considering the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has gone on to hold as follows:
"8. In our view, a reading of S.148 of the N.I. Act as an exception
to the general principles of suspension of sentence by an Appellate
Court as contained in S.389 of the CrPC, and in the backdrop of the
decisions of the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deswal and
Jamboo Bhandari (supra) would result in the following
interpretation as regards the nature and manner of exercise of
discretion by the Appellate Court under S.148 of the N.I. Act:
(a) Under S.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
2025:KER:80142
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. A reading of Annexure A2 order shows that the
Appellate Court has not assigned any reason for directing
the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount, which is
against the principles laid down in Sreenivasan P's case
(supra). Therefore, I am of the view that this is a fit case to
exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Accordingly, I quash Annexure A2 order to the extend it
directs the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount and
further direct the Appellate Court to reconsider the said
question after adverting to the principles laid down in
Sreenivasan P's case (supra). The above exercise shall be
completed within three weeks from the date of production of
a copy of this order. Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:80142
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.08.2025
IN S. T NO. 61/2024 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, NADAPURAM
ANNEXURE A-2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2025
IN C.M.P. NO. 2662/2025 IN CRL. A .NO.
352/2025 ON THE FILE OF SESSION COURT,
KOZHIKODE
