IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3450 of 2011(C) ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRL.RP.1600/2011 Dated 05/07/2011 .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------- A.DARMENNDRA, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA, PROPRIETOR OF KANILA WATCH WORKS MILAGRES BUILDING, HAMPANKATTA, MAMGALORE-1, R/AT KANILA HOUSE, MANJESHWARA P.O., MANJESHAWARA, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------- 1. U.M.CHANDRA MOHAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA ACHARYA, HINDU BUSINESS & AGRICULTURIST, R/AT MORKALA HOUSE, MANJESHWARA, 10TH MILE STONE, P.O.MANJESHWARA, KASARAGOD 675051 2. STASTE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA – 682031 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA FOR R2 ADV. SRI.SIJU MATHEW FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 3450 of 2011(C) APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1: THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN Crl.RP.1600/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 3450 of 2011 . ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th October, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the accused. As per the order of this Court in Annexure A1, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate II(Additional Munsiff), Kasargod, on 06.08.2011. He was to pay the entire amount fixed as compensation within one month from the date of the order. He was specifically directed to deposit that amount before that Court. Admittedly, the petitioner did not deposit that amount. He says that the amount was directly paid to the complainant. That was not the direction of this Court. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that he had received the amount as ordered by this Court. Since the direction was not to pay the amount but to deposit the amount, learned Magistrate is perfectly justified in refusing to act upon the so-called payment. Now the petitioner says that the factum of payment of the amount to the complainant which was made wrongly, may be taken as deposit of the amount as per Annexure A1 order. It Crl.M.C..No.3450 /2011 2 seems, the learned counsel who was appearing for the accused did not properly advice the parties and that is the reason why this petition happened to be filed. However, for the mistake committed by the counsel, the parties should not be directed to suffer. Hence the following direction: The petitioner and de-facto complainant shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 10.11.2011 and the de-facto complainant shall file an affidavit, attested by the counsel appearing for him (the counsel should testify the identity of complainant) regarding the factum of receipt of amount as ordered by this Court. If the petitioner/accused had not undergone the sentence of imprisonment for one day as ordered by the Court, he shall undergo the sentence on the same day. If the parties appear before Court and the affidavit as stated above is filed that shall be treated as due compliance of the order passed by this Court and necessary entries shall be made in the register/record concerned. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, (Judge) Kp/-