IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1058 of 2011() ------------------------- REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :- --------------------------------------------------------------------- MATHEW C.J., AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, BAJI HOUSE, VORKADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE :- -------------------------------------------------------- 1. VISHALAKSHI NAIK, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.M.VISHNU PRASAD NAIK, D/O.B.D.SHEENAPPA NAIK, THALAPACHERI HOUSE, ADOOR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.1058 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 31st day of March 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.251 of 1998 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod (for short, “the CJM”) for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The case arose on a complaint filed by the first respondent. The trial court convicted petitioner and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for eight months. He challenged conviction and sentence before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad Hoc)-II, Kasaragod in Crl.A.No.116 of 2002. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge while confirming conviction modified the sentence as imprisonment till rising of the court, fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default of payment to undergo S.I. for three months. It was directed that in case the amount of fine is realised it Crl.M.C. No.1058 of 2011 -: 2 :- shall be paid to the first respondent as compensation under Sec.357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner challenged that judgment in Crl.R.P.No.3390 of 2008 in this Court. That revision was dismissed as per order dated 24.9.2010 but granting three month's time to the petitioner to deposit fine in the trial court. Petitioner was asked to appear in the trial court on the expiry of the said period of three months (from 24.9.2010) to receive the sentence. Learned counsel says that petitioner paid the amount as compensation to the first respondent but the learned CJM has refused to accept that as sufficient compliance with the order passed by this Court in Crl.R.P.No.3390 of 2008. Hence necessary direction is sought for. 3. The sum of Rs.1,50,000/- being the amount of fine, proper course was to deposit the amount in the trial court and not to give it directly to the respondent though that amount was to be paid to the first respondent by way of compensation. If in such a situation the amount was paid to Crl.M.C. No.1058 of 2011 -: 3 :- the first respondent it is sufficient that if the first respondent acknowledged receipt of the amount, she filed statement in the trial court through her counsel to that effect and thereon necessary entry is made in the relevant register of the trial court. Having regard to the circumstance, I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner to surrender in the trial court. Resultantly this Crl.M.C. is disposed of in the following lines :- 1.Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 12.4.2011 to receive the sentence. 2. If on that day or any day prior to that, the first respondent files a statement in the trial court through her counsel acknowledging receipt of Rs.1,50,000/-, learned CJM shall take that as sufficient compliance with the direction to deposit the amount and shall make necessary entries in the relevant register as directed in paragraph 5 of the decision in Beena v. Crl.M.C. No.1058 of 2011 -: 4 :- Balakrishnan Nair [2010 (2) KLT 1017]. 3.Warrant of arrest if any issued to the petitioner shall stand in abeyance till 12.4.2011. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt