IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH APRIL 2009 / 4TH VAISAKHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1397 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.769/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: --------------- K.E.MATHEW,KANICHUKATTU HOUSE, PURAMATTAM,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. T.K.PRADEEPKUMAR,NADUVILAMURIYIL, NALUKODY P.O.PAIPADU VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.TK. MOHANAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ---------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 1397 OF 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of April, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C. 769/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottayam. He was convicted and sentenced after trial for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was confirmed in appeal and revision. This court in revision modified the sentence and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,25,000/- within five months from the date of the order and in default to make the payment to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Admittedly he did not make the payment of fine within the time stipulated by this Court. Pursuant to warrant issued in execution of the sentence for non compliance of the default sentence , the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chenganasseri. The Magistrate declined to accept the file as the period fixed for payment by this Court was over and he was sent over to the prison to undergo the sentence imposed. The petitioner seeks permission to deposit the proportionate part of the fine amount imposed by this Court. Crl.M.C. 1397/2009 -2- 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. I do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner for proportionate reduction in the fine for the period of imprisonment suffered in default of payment of fine imposed. He was given the grace period of five months to pay the fine of Rs. 1,25,000/- forthwith. Out of the fine amount realised, this court has directed to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- to the complainant. Needless to point out that even serving out of the default term of imprisonment for non payment of fine would not absolve the petitioner from the payment of fine. But of course it will be realised only from his assets if any, and that too possibly only within the period provided by law. So much so, I hold he is not entitled to any proportionate reduction in the fine amount for the period of sentence suffered in default of payment of fine. 3. No doubt, the learned Magistrate was not justified in not accepting the fine amount tendered for the reason that the grace period granted by the court for depositing of such amount was over. Default term of imprisonment for non payment of fine is liable to be imposed only if the fine amount is not remitted, and Crl.M.C. 1397/2009 -3- such payment can be made within the grace period provided or even thereafter. So much so, the learned Magistrate is directed to receive the fine amount, if tendered by the petitioner, and to pass appropriate orders for releasing him from custody. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to deposit the entire fine within one week from the date of this order to get his release from imprisonment on his default in paying the fine imposed. The revision is disposed as indicated above. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE vkm