IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 3286 OF 2007() ------------------------------------------- CC.1575/2003 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------ R.RAMANATHAN, RESIDING AT 22/275, TEMPLE VILLAGE, PALAKKAD - 678 028. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/2ND ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.SRI GANESH PAPERS, XL/6204, GOPALAPRABHU CROSS ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 035, REPRESENTED BY SRI.SANALKUMAR, S/O.K.N.NADESAN, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, M/S.GANESH PAPERS, XL/6204, GOPALAPRABHU CROSS ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682035 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. KRISHNAMOORTHY, MANAGING PARTNER, DHARMASASTHA PAPER MART, S.J.COMPLEX, R.S.ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678 001. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.3286 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Though respondent No.1 is served by affixture, it remained absent. 2. Challenge in this revision is to the legality, regularity and propriety of a direction issued by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi-5 in C.C. No.1575 of 2003 to the petitioner to deposit compensation of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 3. Petitioner against whom prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was initiated pleaded guilty. Accepting that plea he was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. Along with that, he was directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Counsel contends that petitioner had stated before learned magistrate that his business collapsed and has no means to pay the amount but without conducting any enquiry regarding that, direction for payment of compensation was issued which according to the petitioner is against the direction of the Supreme Court in Dilip S.Dhanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. (AIR 2007 (SCW) CRL. R.P. No.3286 of 2007 -: 2 :- 2425). Counsel contends that in the connected case this Court has already set aside the direction for payment of compensation and remitted the matter to the trial court for fresh decision after conducting proper enquiry into the means of petitioner. 4. It is seen from the impugned order that petitioner had stated before learned magistrate that he met with heavy loss in business. Learned magistrate has to enquire into the means of petitioner before he is ordered to pay compensation. Since that was not done, the impugned order to the extent it concerned direction for payment of compensation cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The matter has to go back to the learned magistrate for appropriate decision after proper enquiry. Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part. The impugned order to the extent it concerned direction for payment of compensation is set aside. Case is remitted to the trial court for appropriate decision regarding payment of compensation after conducting proper enquiry into the means of petitioner as stated in the decision cited supra. Petitioner shall appear in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi-5 on 31.7.2009. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9591 of 2007 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv