IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 634 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CC.203/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------- C.L. DAVIS, S/O.LAZAR, CHIRIANKANDATH HOUSE, PULIYANNOOR, VELLATTANJOOR.PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAJIT, MR.V.C.LATHEEF. RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. P. SHEEBA, W/O. R.PRAKASH, SHIJO BHAVAN, NETTIKULAM, VADASSERIKONAM P.O, VARKALA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.634 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 23rd February 2010 O R D E R Second respondent was acquitted by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam in C.C.203/2000 on a complaint filed by the petitioner alleging that he committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It was challenged before this court in Crl.A.786/2002. By Annexure-A judgment dated 26/5/2009, order of acquittal was set aside and second respondent was found guilty and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,30,000/- providing that on realisation of the amount, it is to be paid to the petitioner and on failure to pay second respondent to undergo Crmc 634/10 2 imprisonment for two months. This petition is filed by the complainant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that he has already received Rs.1,30,000/- as directed in Annexure-A judgment directly from the second respondent and in view receipt of the amount, proceedings shall not be taken against the accused in C.C.203/2000. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. Though technically as provided in Annexure-A judgment the accused has to deposit the fine before the Magistrate on or before 25/7/2009, judgment itself provides that on receipt of the amount it is to be paid to the petitioner as compensation. Second respondent instead of depositing the Crmc 634/10 3 amount, paid the amount directly to the plaintiff, though it was subsequent to the period provided under Annexure-A judgment. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to direct the second respondent to undergo default sentence. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam is directed not to execute the default sentence in C.C.203/2000, as the amount to be paid as fine by the judgment of this court, which on deposit should have been paid to the complainant, was already paid by the second respondent and received by the complainant. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.