IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl Rev Pet No. 2602 of 2007() 1. SREENIVASAN T., S/O. KELAN, Petitioner Vs 1. PRAJITH RAJ, S/O. GOPALAN, Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :23/10/2007 O R D E R [ENTITY] , J [CASE NUMBER] IN CRL. R.P. Nos. 2602, 1035, 2470,2459, 893, 2629,2575, 2941, 2586, 2144, 1801, 489, 1842, 2585 of 2007 & 908 of 2006 Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2007. ORDER
In all these cases, after the disposal of the revisions, petitions have been filed by the accused seeking enlargement of time for payment of the compensation ordered to be paid under [SECTION] [ACT] It was then felt as to whether enlargement of time if granted in these applications would not amount to review of that part of the final orders passed in the revision thereby offending [SECTION] [ACT] The learned counsel for the applicants argued that it would not amount to review of that part of the final order and that even if it would amount to review, the power under [SECTION] [ACT] was wide enough to overwrite [SECTION] [ACT] The arguments were mainly addressed by Adv. Sri. [ENTITY] and Adv. Shri. [ENTITY].
2. Interpreting [SECTION] of the 1898 Code, a three Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] observed that the High Court sitting in appeal in a suitable case could judicially correct the observations of the lower court by recourse to its inherent power under [SECTION] A [ACT] but cautioned that the said power must be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of the party concerned would irrevocably suffer otherwise. In Raj Kapoor & others v. State ( Delhi Administration) & others (AIR 1980 SC
258) a two Judges' Bench of the Apex Court had to consider whether the inherent power of the High Court under [SECTION] [ACT] would stand repelled, when the revisional power under [SECTION] overlapsed. It was observed that there would not be any bar in exercising the inherent power in view of the opening words of [SECTION] itself which says that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The overriding words at the beginning of the Section were held to be wide enough to circumvent even the power of revision under [SECTION] of the Code. Again in [PRECEDENT] a two Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court reiterated that the bar under [SECTION] does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court under [SECTION] [ACT] The position was further reinstated by two judges of the Apex Court again in [PRECEDENT] to say that [SECTION] [ACT] is not controlled or curtailed by any of the provisions of the very same Code. In [PRECEDENT], the question arose before a two Judges' Bench of the Apex Court as to whether the power under [SECTION] could be exercised to fill any procedural lacunae and it was held that the inherent power could be exercised even to cover any procedural lacuna in the statute. In [PRECEDENT] which is the celebrated Parliament Attack case, the Apex Court in paragraph 29 of the judgment reiterated the position that the power under [SECTION] [ACT] could be exercised notwithstanding the power under [SECTION] or any other provision of the [ACT] though not against the power under other laws. In [PRECEDENT], even though it was observed by a two Judges' Bench of the Apex Court that filing too many applications under [SECTION] [ACT], after the rejection of the 1st one seeking enlargement of time for deposit of the fine amount was not permissible, the Supreme Court granted one month's time for making deposit of fine as directed by the High Court. Of course, in the decisions reported in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] a different note is struck to hold that in the face of an express bar either in the form of [SECTION] or any other Section, the power under [SECTION] cannot be invoked by the High Court so as to review its own judgment or order, those decisions were not in the context of seeking enlargement of time fixed under the final order passed by the High Court in revision.
3. After a careful evaluation of the aforesaid rulings of the Apex Court, I do not think that it is impermissible for the High Court to grant enlargement of time fixed under the final order passed in a revision by resorting to [SECTION] [ACT] in deserving cases. I am also convinced that by granting enlargement of time in these petitions filed under [SECTION] [ACT], this Court will not be offending [SECTION] [ACT] In this view of the matter, I proceed to examine the petitions filed in each of the cases on their own merits.
4. In [CASE NUMBER], the petitioner/accused was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation under [SECTION] [ACT] within three months of 29.06.2007. As per Crl. M.A. No. 10217/2007, the petitioner has sought for a further extension of three months from 26.09.2007 on the ground that he had suffered huge loss in his business and was unable to raise funds in spite of best efforts put in by him. Having regard to the aforementioned ground raised by the petitioner, the time as prayed for is granted.
5. In [CASE NUMBER], the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation within three months from 06.07.2007. As per [CASE NUMBER], he has sought for a further extension of three months time from 06.10.2007 on the ground that he has sustained huge loss in his business and that in spite of best efforts put in by him, he could not raise the amount. The petitioner is given two months' time from today to pay or deposit the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-.
6. In [CASE NUMBER], the petitioner therein, who is a lady, was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.60,000/- within three months from 25.06.2007. As per [CASE NUMBER], she has sought for time till 31.10.2007 for depositing the balance amount of Rs.40,000/-. She has also stated that pursuant to the orders of the First Appellate Court, she had deposited Rs.20,000/- before the trial Court. The time prayed for is granted and the 1st respondent/ complainant shall be permitted to withdraw the entire amount of Rs.60,000/- including the amounts already deposited and to be deposited before the trial Court.
7. In [CASE NUMBER], the petitioner/accused therein was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- within three months from 05.07.2007. As per [CASE NUMBER], the petitioner has sought for one month's time from 01.10.2007 to deposit the amount of compensation. He would say that he has been suffering from low back ache and he is undergoing treatment in the Community Health Centre, Kalady and has been advised to take rest for 45 days on account of which he has been finding it difficult to raise funds. Considering the above ground put forward by the petitioner, he is given a further time of one month from today for complying with the conditions in the final order.
8. In [CASE NUMBER], the petitioner/accused was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- within three months from 03.07.2007. As per [CASE NUMBER], he has prayed for six months time from the date of the order to make a deposit. Since he has not given the details of the illness or treatment, he is given two more months' time from today to deposit the amount.
9. In [CASE NUMBER], the petitioner/accused therein was granted three months' time from 29.06.2007 to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.1,55,000/-. As per [CASE NUMBER], he has sought for extension of time by one month from 27.09.2007 to deposit the amount. The reason put forward by the petitioner is that he made an attempt for settling the matter with the 1st respondent/complainant, but all his efforts failed and he could mobilise a sum of Rs.50,000/- only so far. The petitioner is given a further time of one month from today to deposit the entire amount.
10. In [CASE NUMBER], the petitioner was given two months' time to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation under [SECTION] [ACT] He has filed [CASE NUMBER] seeking two month's extension of time for depositing the compensation. The ground put forward for extension is that he is afflicted with jaundice. He is given one more month's time from today to deposit the amount.
11. In [CASE NUMBER], revision petitioners 2 and 3, who are the directors of a company, were each directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under [SECTION] [ACT] within two months from 11.07.2007. They have filed [CASE NUMBER] seeking enlargement of time for payment of balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- stating that they have already deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 22.09.2007. Having regard to the financial conditions highlighted by the petitioners, they are given one month's time from today to deposit the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
12. In [CASE NUMBER], the revision petitioner/ accused was directed to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation within three months from 05.07.2007. As per [CASE NUMBER], he has prayed for extension of two more months time on the ground of financial difficulties. The petitioner is given two months' time from today to deposit the amount.
13. In [CASE NUMBER], the revision petitioner/accused was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,025,00/- to the complainant within two months from 06.08.2007. He has filed [CASE NUMBER] seeking six months time to pay the amount. The reason put forward in support of the petition is that his son was afflicted by cancer and he unexpectedly succumbed to the disease on 30.09.2007 and his wife and children have not recovered from the shock of bereavement. The petitioner is given five months' time from today to deposit the compensation.
14. In [CASE NUMBER], the revision petitioner/accused therein was directed to pay a sum of Rs.98,000/- as compensation within three months from 04.07.2007. He has filed [CASE NUMBER] seeking enlargement of time of two months on the ground of financial stringency. The petitioner is given two months' time from today to deposit the amount.
15. In [CASE NUMBER], the revision petitioner/ accused was directed to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation within three months from 09.07.2007. He has filed [CASE NUMBER] seeking enlargement of time by two months on the ground of financial difficulties. He is granted time till 09.12.2007 for depositing the amount.
16. In [CASE NUMBER], the revision petitioner/ accused therein was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation within three months from 10.07.2007. He has filed [CASE NUMBER] seeking extension of time by another two months on the ground that he was unable to deposit the amount in time by selling his immovable property and mobilise funds by way of sale proceeds . He is given two months' time from today to pay the compensation.
17. In [CASE NUMBER], the petitioner/accused therein was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- within three months from 02.07.2007. He has filed [CASE NUMBER] seeking two more months time on the ground that his father who is a heart patient had to undergo a major surgery for which he has raised considerable amount and he is in acute financial stringency. He is given two months' time from today to deposit the compensation.
18. In [CASE NUMBER], the petitioner/accused was directed to pay a sum of Rs.38,000/- as compensation within three months from 02.07.2007. He has filed [CASE NUMBER] seeking extension of time of two months to pay the compensation on the ground that he was assaulted by a group of miscreants resulting in the Kayamkulam police registering crime against them and he has been advised to take rest for three months by the doctor at the Government Hospital, Kayamkulam. He is given one month's time from today to deposit the compensation amount.
[ENTITY], JUDGE.