IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 581 of 2011() ----------------------------------- CRA.229/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM ST.887/2006 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT ------------------------------------- K.G. MADHUSUDHANAN, KAROTTUPONGAVANA HOUSE, VILLOONNI P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.R. MANOJ, KOOCHUPURAYIL VEEDU, ARPOOKKARA EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.J. MOHEMMED ANZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.581 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in S.T. No.887 of 2006 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam and convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment and payment of fine. Appellate court in Crl. Appeal No.229of 2008 while confirming conviction modified the sentence as imprisonment till rising of the court and payment of fine of Rs.30,000/- with a default sentence. It was directed that the entire amount if deposited will be paid to respondent No.2 as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Grievance of petitioner is that petitioner paid the entire amount to the second respondent directly and respondent No.2 filed AnnexureA2, petition before the learned Magistrate stating that he has received the sum of `.30,000/- but learned Magistrate has not entertained the same. 2. No doubt being fine, the amount ought should have been deposited in court and it should have been disbursed to respondent No.2 from the court. But in situation of this nature CRL.M.C. No.581 of 2011 -: 2 :- when direction is to deposit the amount as fine and it is directed that the entire fine amount shall be paid to respondent No.2 as compensation it is sufficient that necessary entries are made in the Registers concerned on respondent No.2 acknowledging receipt of the amount. This Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation in Beena v. Balakrishnan Nair (2010 [2] KLT 1017) and in paragraph 5 it was directed that payment if acknowledged by the complainant be entered in the relevant Registers. There is no reason why that procedure should not be adopted in this case also. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of in the following lines: (i) Petitioner is directed to appear in the trial court on 07.03.2011 to receive the sentence. (ii) If respondent No.2 filed a statement through his counsel in the trial court acknowledging receipt of `.30,000/- by way of compensation learned Magistrate shall follow the CRL.M.C. No.581 of 2011 -: 3 :- procedure stated in paragraph 5 of the decision stated supra and record in the relevant Registers that petitioner has deposited the fine and it was disbursed to respondent No.2. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv