IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15392 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JOHNY THOMAS, AGED 49, S/O.EYO THOMAS, PATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ETTUKARRU TEMPLE ROAD, ELAMAKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. T.R.THOMAS, THOTTIYIL HOUSE, AZAD ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682017. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.15392 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June 2008 J U D G M E N T The short grievance of the petitioner was that though he had remitted an amount of Rs.30,000/- as directed by the learned Sessions/Appellate Judge; had later remitted an amount of Rs.60,000/- after the disposal of the revision by a demand draft and had subsequently offered willingness to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,000/-, the learned Magistrate was not receiving the same and issuing the necessary acknowledgment. This causes difficulties to the petitioner as he was not able to produce the necessary voucher before the Supreme Court in the special leave petition, the Supreme Court having insisted on proof of payment of the compensation amount as directed by the revisional court. The short prayer in this writ petition was that the learned Magistrate may be directed to issue the requisite receipt enabling the petitioner to produce the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. I was shocked and disturbed to hear that the learned Magistrate has not issued receipts even though the petitioner W.P.C.No.15392/08 2 had handed over the demand draft for Rs.60,000/- and had offered willingness to pay the balance amount Rs.5,000/-. The report of the learned Magistrate was called for. The learned Magistrate now reports that it is true that a total amount of Rs.95,000/- was received. I am dissatisfied that the petitioner is obliged to come to this court to seek such a relief when the petitioner had deposited Rs.30,000/- as directed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rs.60,000/- by demand draft and Rs.5,000/- was offered to be deposited. I have no hesitation to agree that the learned Magistrate must have received all those amounts and issued receipts. The learned Magistrate did not do the same. I find no merit in the explanation that this court in revision had directed the petitioner to comply with the order directing payment of compensation by 29/2/2008. The fact that a revisional court grants such time to the indictee to make payment of compensation amount cannot in any way clothe the Magistrate with the power to refuse to accept amounts tendered after the stipulated date. The accused had the option to remit the amount at any time before or after the stipulated period. The only insistence is that coercive steps of recovery should not be W.P.C.No.15392/08 3 taken till the date fixed for making payment. The learned Magistrate appears to have grossly misdirected himself in understanding the directions regarding the date of appearance fixed as per Ext.P3 order passed in revision. 3. In any case, the amounts having already been received by court and receipts having already been issued to the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays and this writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed as unnecessary; but with the above observations. 4. Communicate the order to the learned Magistrate. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.15392/08 4 W.P.C.No.15392/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007