IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2640 of 2009() ------------------------- CRMP.2027/2009 IN CRA.NO.252/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.1025/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------- SURENDRAN.P, PARAVILAYIL VEEDU, MANJALLOOR, PATHANAPURAM PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. BIJU THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, THONICHALLIL BIJUBHAVAN, PIDAVOOR PO, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. B.VINOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2640 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- and in default to simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioner filed Crl.A.No.252/2009 before Sessions Court, Kollam to suspend the sentence. Under Anenxure-B order, learned Sessions Judge suspended the sentence on executing a bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum and on depositing 1/8th of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the condition to deposit 1/8th of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel, relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Retnakaran v. State of Kerala (ILR 2006 (4) Kerala CRMC 2640/09 2 658), is that instead of directing the petitioner to deposit 1/8th of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, petitioner is to be permitted to furnish sufficient security. 4. Learned Sessions Judge was justified in directing the petitioner to furnish security for part of the compensation amount, when petitioner sought to suspend the sentence. Petitioner did not offer any security before the learned Sessions Judge in lieu of the deposit directed. It is up to the petitioner to approach the learned Sessions Judge to accept sufficient security in lieu of the deposit, if petitioner is not in a position to deposit the amount. If the petitioner is not furnishing security, he is also at liberty to seek for an expeditious disposal of the appeal. Petition is disposed. 13th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv