IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 156 of 2011() ----------------------------------- C.C.37/1996 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, RAMANKARI. .................. PETITIONER(S): --------------- KANAKAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, RAJESH BHAVAN, WARD NO.2, PULLICUNNU PANCHAYATH, KUTTANAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.156 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.37 of 1996 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankari. He was tried and convicted for offence punishable under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act (for short, “the Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and payment of fine of `.1,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. His appeal was dismissed. In revision this Court by order dated 18.09.2007 modified the sentence as imprisonment till rising of the court and payment of fine of `.5,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner was granted two months' time to remit fine in the trial court. He was directed to appear in the trial court on 26.11.2007 to receive the sentence. He however did not do so. On a later point of time he approached learned Magistrate willing to deposit the fine amount but that was not permitted by the trial court since the time specified by this Court by order dated 18.09.2007 had expired. Learned counsel relying on the decision of this Court in Girish v. Muthoot Capital Service (P) Ltd. (2007 (1) KLT 16) contended that it was open to the petitioner to deposit fine at any stage. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. Crl.MC No.156/2011 2 2. In this proceeding it is not necessary to consider correctness of the argument advanced by learned counsel that notwithstanding the time fixed by this Court to deposit fine it is open to the petitioner to deposit fine at any stage of the proceeding. Petitioner has expressed willingness to deposit fine within a week's time. What is required is to grant time till then. Resultantly this petition is disposed of in the following lines: i. Petitioner is granted time till 11.03.2011 to deposit fine of `.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as ordered by this Court in Crl.R.P.No.1095 of 2000. ii. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 11.03.2011 to receive the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court. iii. Till 11.03.2011 execution of warrant if any issued against petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks