IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1792 of 2011() --------------------------------- FOR DIRECTION IN CC NO.1119/2004 ON THE FILE OF JFMC-I PUNALUR ............................ PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- VISWAKUMAR @ BABU, ADAVIKONATHU VEEDU, VILLUMALA, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SRI. SIJU KAMALASANAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SIBI J.THOMAS, KUTTIYIL VEEDU, ARYANKAVU, KOLLAM DISTRICT.- 691 506 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1792 of 2011() ANNEXURE ANNEXURE 1 : COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.R.P. NO. 1893/2010 DT. 23.06.10 ANNEXURE 2 : COPY OPF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDE DATED 23.09.2010 ANNEXURE 3 : COPY OF CRL.M.P.NO. 8923/2011, DATED 08.06.2011 IN CC.NO. 1119/2004 // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE smt THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.1792 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 16th day of June 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1119 of 2004 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Punalur for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. There was also a direction to pay compensation of `2,00,000/-. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kollam but that appeal was dismissed. He preferred Crl.R.P.No.1893 of 2010 before this Court. That revision was disposed of as per order dated 23.6.2010. The sentence was modified as fine of `2,30,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. It was also directed that on realisation of the amount, `2,25,000/- shall be paid to the first respondent as compensation. Petitioner was directed to appear before the Crl.M.C. No.1792 of 2011 -: 2 :- trial court on 23.9.2010. Petitioner says that he has paid `2,25,000/- to the first respondent directly and produced Annexure-2 receipt to evidence payment. The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to direct learned Magistrate to accept Annexure-2 receipt and permit petitioner to pay `5,000/- as fine. Learned counsel requested that in the above circumstance, petitioner may be permitted to deposit fine of `5,000/-. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. Since this Court imposed fine of `2,30,000/-, the amount ought to have been deposited in the trial court and it was for the trial court to disburse `2,25,000/- to the first respondent. However, if petitioner has paid the sum of `2,25,000/- to the first respondent, that can be taken as substantial compliance with the direction in the order dated 23.6.2010. What is required is only that necessary entries are made in the register of the trial court as directed in paragraph 5 of the decision in Beena v. Balakrishnan Nair [2010 (2) KLT 1017]. Petitioner can be permitted to remit the sum of `5,000/- by way of fine in the trial court. Crl.M.C. No.1792 of 2011 -: 3 :- Resultantly, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of in the following lines :- (1)Petitioner is directed to appear in the trial court on 4.7.2011 and deposit fine of `5,000/- in the said court. (2)If on that day or before that day the first respondent files a statement in the trial court acknowledging receipt of `2,25,000/- by way of compensation, learned Magistrate shall make necessary entries in the registers of that court as directed in paragraph 5 of the decision referred supra. (3)Coercive steps if any, initiated against petitioner will stand in abeyance till 4.7.2011. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt