IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3790 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.864/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :- --------------------------------------- T.V.RAJEEVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, T.V.HOUSE, MADAMPAM P.O., SREEKANDAPURAM AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.J.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE :- ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.V.KRISHNAN, S/O.KUNHAPPA, KAVILE VEEDU, MYLADATHAZHA, AZHIKODE P.O., AZHIKODE AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 009. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt CRL.M.C.No. 3790 OF 2011 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Annexure A1 :- Copy of the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.377/1999 of Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery dated 21-8-2004. Annexure A2 :- Copy of the certificate issued by Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur. Annexure A3 :- Copy of the docket order dated 4-10-2010 in C.C.No.864/1997 of the J.F.C.M. Court No.II, Kannur. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3790 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November 2011 O R D E R Petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and also to pay another sum of Rs.55,000/- as compensation with a default sentence of S. I. for two months in a case filed under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act. The accused did not pay the amount. He underwent default sentence. Hence the petitioner contended that proceedings should not have been initiated for realisation of the fine amount as mentioned above. But, in view of the fact that compensation of Rs.55,000/- is to be realised, in view of the proviso to Sec.421 the proceedings can be initiated for recovering the same. In other words, the fact that the accused had undergone default sentence will not wipe out the liability altogether. Therefore, the proceedings taken under Sec.421 is perfectly correct. 2. Adv.Sri.Madhavanunni, the learned counsel for Crl.M.C. No.3790 of 2011 -: 2 :- the petitioner would submit that the property which is proceeded against by the Revenue Officials is situated beyond the jurisdiction of J.F.C.M., Taliparamba. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is nothing to show that J.F.C.M., Taliparamba has authorised to attach or to effect sale of such property situated outside such jurisdiction. That argument does not appear to be correct. Warrant under Sec.421(1) Cr.P.C. sent to the District Collector/District Magistrate itself is the authorisation which enables the District Collector to proceed against movable or immovable property of the convict. Admittedly, the property which is sought to be proceeded against is situated within the jurisdiction of the District Collector/District Magistrate, Kannur. Sec.422 Cr.P.C. says that the District Magistrate/District Collector has to endorse for further action to be taken under Sec.421. Without the endorsement his subordinate officers cannot proceed against, for attaching the property mentioned Crl.M.C. No.3790 of 2011 -: 3 :- earlier. It is not the J.F.C.M., Taliparamba who is to make endorsement or make any other further order so as to attach the property which is situated within the jurisdiction of District Magistrate, Kannur. It is only to be done by the District Collector/District Magistrate of that District. Therefore, the challenge in this petition is found to be devoid of any merit. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt