[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Prince Joseph vs K M Thomas on 6 January, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 31 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:339
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 16TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 31 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2025 IN Crl.A NO.154
OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, THODUPUZHA
PETITIONER/S:
PRINCE JOSEPH
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH, MOOLECHALIL HOUSE, KAMAKSHI KARA, KANCHIYAR
P.O,THANKAMANY VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK., PIN - 685609
BY ADV SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 K M THOMAS
S/O MATHEW, AGED 66 YEARS,KARUVANTHAZHE HOUSE,
KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE,IDUKKI TALUK., PIN
- 685508
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 31 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:339
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No. 31 of 2026
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2026
ORDER
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence in ST
No.25/20219 passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate-II, Kattappana (Trial Court), the petitioner has
preferred Crl.Appeal No.154/2025 (Annexure-A1) before the
Court of Session, Thodupuzha (Appellate Court). Along with
the appeal the petitioner also filed Annexure-A2 application to
suspend the execution of the sentence. However, by the
impugned Annexure-A3 order, the Appellate Court has
directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount
within 60 days from the date of order, failing which the
suspension of sentence would stand vacated. Annexure A3
order is erroneous and improper and is against the principles
laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Jamboo
Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd., [(2023) 10 SCC 446]. The petitioner has
specifically pleaded in Annexure A2 application that he was in
CRL.MC NO. 31 OF 2026
2026:KER:339
financial distress to remit the fine amount. Hence, Annexure
A3 order may be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor. In view of the order that I
propose to pass, I dispense with notice to the 1st respondent.
3. The petitioner's specific case is that he is in financial
distress and is unable to remit 20% of the fine amount as
ordered in Annexure-A3 order. Although the petitioner has
specifically pleaded about his financial difficulties, the
Appellate Court has failed to give any reason in the impugned
order, while directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine
amount.
4. In Sreenivasan P vs. Babu Raj [2024 (2) KHC 621], 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
CRL.MC NO. 31 OF 2026
2026:KER:339
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. A reading of Annexure A3 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 by this Court in Sreenivasan'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 BNSS.
Accordingly, I allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Case
by quashing Annexure A3 order and directing the Appellate
Court to reconsider Annexure A2 application after adverting to
the principles laid down in Sreenivasan's case (supra). The
CRL.MC NO. 31 OF 2026
2026:KER:339
above exercise shall be completed within three weeks from the
date of production of a copy of this order.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/06.01.26
CRL.MC NO. 31 OF 2026
2026:KER:339
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 31 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF CRL. APPEAL
154/2025 OF HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT,
THODUPUZHA DATED 6/11/2025
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF PETITION CRL. MP 5663/2025 IN
CRL. APPEAL 154/2025 TO SUSPEND THE EXECUTION
OF SENTENCE FILED IN SESSIONS COURT,
THODUPUZHA DATED 6/11/2025
Annexure A3 A CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 06/11/2025 IN
CRL MP 5663/2025 IN CRL APPEAL 154/2025 OF
SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24/07/2024 IN
CRL.MC: 6266/2024 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
