[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
George Jacob vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 262 OF 2026 1 2026:KER:3291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 25TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 262 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2025 IN Crl.A
NO.171 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THODUPUZHA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
GEORGE JACOB
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O JACOB, VALIYAPADINARETHIL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA SOUTH
P.O., KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, IDUKKI., PIN - 685515
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR
SRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR
SHRI.SACHIN GEORGE ARAMBAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT :
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM -, PIN - 682031
2 MANJU SHYJIN
AGED 27 YEARS
W/O SHYJIN CHACKO, KUNNEL HOUSE, KALTHOTTY KARA,
KANCHIYAR VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK AND DISTRICT., PIN -
685507
SR PP SMT SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 262 OF 2026 2 2026:KER:3291
C.S.DIAS,J
--------------------------------------------
CRL.MC NO. 262 OF 2026
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2026
ORDER
Aggrieved by Annexure A1 judgment passed by the
Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kattappana,
in C.C.No.204/2020, convicting and sentencing the
petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', in short), the
petitioner has preferred Crl. Appeal No.171/2025 on the
file of the Court of Session, Thodupuzha (Appellate Court).
Along with the appeal, the petitioner had filed an
application to suspend the execution of the substantive
sentence and fine imposed on him. However, by the
impugned Annexure A2 order, the Appellate Court
suspended the sentence, subject to the condition that the
petitioner deposits 20% of the fine/compensation amount
within sixty days, failing which the order suspending
CRL.MC NO. 262 OF 2026 3 2026:KER:3291
sentence will stand vacated. In fact the petitioner had
specifically pleaded in the application that he is a daily
labourer having no means to deposit the compensation
amount. Although, the petitioner made out exceptional
circumstances, the Appellate Court has passed the
impugned order, which is untenable. Hence, the Crl.M.C.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. In view of the
limited relief that I proposed to pass and the fact that the
matter pertains to suspension of the sentence, I dispense
with notice to the 2nd respondent .
3. The petitioner's specific case in the application is
that, he is a daily labourer having no financial means.
Therefore, he may be exempted from depositing any
fine/compensation amount as envisaged under Section 148
of the NI Act.
4. In Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal
and others v. Virendar Gandhi (2019 (11) SCC 341) , the
Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the
language under Section 148 of the N.I.Act is 'may' and not
CRL.MC NO. 262 OF 2026 4 2026:KER:3291
'shall'. Therefore, the discretion is vested with the
Appellate Court to decide whether 20% of the
fine/compensation amount is to be deposited or waived, for
suspending the sentence imposed on the accused. The said
provision has to be purposefully interpreted in furtherance
of the objects and reasons of the amendment under Section
148 of the N.I.Act.
5. The above view has been reiterated in Jamboo
Bhandari v. M.P.State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd (2023 (6) KHC 80) by holding that when
an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of
relief for suspension of sentence without condition.
Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellant,
the Appellate Court has to consider whether the case falls
within exceptional grounds. An identical view has been
taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Sreenivasan P.
v. Babu Raj (2024 (2) KHC 621), by holding that the
Appellate Court has a discretion to either order the
appellant to deposit a portion of the fine/ compensation
CRL.MC NO. 262 OF 2026 5 2026:KER:3291
amount awarded by the Trial Court or to waive such
deposit. In either case, the Appellate Court has to give
reasons for exercising such statutory discretion.
6. In the instant case, although the petitioner has
specifically mentioned the exceptional circumstances to
wave the statutory deposit of 20% as envisaged under
Section 148 of the NI Act, the Appellate Court has directed
the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount without
assigning any reason.
7. Both in Jamboo Bhandari & Surinder Singh
Deswal 's cases (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court
has categorically held that discretion of the Court is to be
exercised in cases where exceptional circumstances are
made out.
8. On a consideration of the facts and materials on
record, especially the reasons stated in the application, I
am of the definite view that the petitioner has made out
exceptional circumstances to waive the statutory deposit of
the fine amount for the suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, I allow the Criminal Miscellaneous
CRL.MC NO. 262 OF 2026 6 2026:KER:3291
Case, by setting aside the condition in Annexure A2 order to
the extent it directs the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine
amount and I suspend the execution of the sentence
imposed on the petitioner, as per Annexure A1 judgment,
subject to the condition that the petitioner executes a bond
for Rs.7,10,177/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum
to the satisfaction of the Trial Court within ten days from
today.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
SCB.15.01.26.
CRL.MC NO. 262 OF 2026 7 2026:KER:3291
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 262 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure AI A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
29.10.2025 IN C.C. NO. 204/2020 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KATTAPPANA
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.6003
OF 2025 IN CRL.A.NO.171 OF 2025 DATED
25.11.2025 OF THE LEARNED SESSION'S COURT,
THODUPUZHA
