IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 3898 OF 2010() ----------------------------------------- CC.351/2002 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ----------------------------------------- MURALEEDHARAN, 'SYAMVIHAR', MATHILICHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.3898 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner was accused in C.C. No.351 of 2002 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kottarakkara for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. There was also a direction for deposit of `.3,00,000/- as compensation payable to the complainant. Conviction and sentence were confirmed by this court in Crl. R.P. No.856 of 2006 vide Annexure-A, order. It is the case of petitioner that though direction was to deposit compensation in the trial court he paid the amount directly to the complainant and filed Crl. M.C. No.1216 of 2010 in this Court to treat payment of the amount to the complainant as sufficient compliance of the order for deposit of the amount. This Court disposed of that petition vide Annexure-B, order directing learned Magistrate not to take steps for execution of the sentence for payment of compensation as complainant has already received the compensation as admitted in his affidavit. It was also directed CRL.M.C. No.3898 of 2010 -: 2 :- that if any warrant is issued for realization of the amount it shall not be executed. Petitioner says that before Annexure-B, order was passed by this Court a sum of `.50,000/- was realized from him under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and the said amount of `.50,000/- was deposited in the court of learned Magistrate. Petitioner wanted the said amount to be returned to him but learned Magistrate has not passed any order since according to the learned Magistrate this Court is to clarify that petitioner is entitled to get the said amount. Learned counsel submits that in spite of giving Annexure-C, notice to the complainant he has not responded and hence petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the said amount. 2. It is seen from Annexure-C, that notice was issued to the complainant stating that in C.C. No.351 of 2002 there is a deposit of `.50,000/- and that if there is no appeal pending against judgment of trial court complainant could take steps to withdraw the amount. Admittedly petitioner has not filed any application before the learned Magistrate for withdrawal of the sum of `.50,000/- deposited. If compensation payable to the complainant has already been paid there could be no doubt that the amount deposited (recovered from petitioner through CRL.M.C. No.3898 of 2010 -: 3 :- revenue recovery proceedings) is to be paid to the petitioner. But for the said purpose petitioner has to move an application before the learned Magistrate. In case any such application is moved learned Magistrate shall give notice on the said application to the complainant and after hearing him also or in case he does not appear in spite of service of notice after hearing petitioner pass appropriate orders having regard to Annexure-B, order passed by this Court. With the above direction this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv