IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 663 of 2011() ------------------------ CRMP 2724/2010 IN CRA.437/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM ST.79/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S)PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------- THYAGU, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.UPENDRAN, CHANDU NIVAS, VADASSERIKONAM, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. M.SHERIEF, S/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 44 YEARS, KIOZHAKKANAZHIKOM, PANTHRANDU MURI, THATTAMALA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN 691 020. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.663 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass. 2. Petitioner faced trial in S.T.No.79 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kollam for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and by Annexure-A1, judgment he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, payment of compensation of Rupees one lakh and in default to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. Petitioner challenged that conviction and sentence before the learned Sessions Judge, Kollam in Crl.Appeal No.437 of 2010 and sought suspension of sentence vide Crl.M.P.No.2724 of 2010. Learned Sessions Judge vide Annexure-A2, order dated 03.11.2010 allowed the application subject to conditions including that petitioner remitted one fourth of the amount of compensation in the trial court within one month from that day. That condition is under challenge. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that the condition imposed and under challenge is not legal or proper. Having regard to the facts of the case and object of legislation, I do not find reason to interfere with th e said condition. Crl.MC No.663/2011 2 Learned counsel sought three months' time to deposit the amount of compensation. Financial difficulties of petitioner is stated to be the reason. 4. It is seen that the impugned order was passed on November 3, 2010 granting one month's time which has already expired and this petition is filed only on 03.03.2011. However, having regard to the circumstances stated, raised I am inclined to grant one month's further time from this day to the petitioner to deposit the amount in the trial court. If petitioner has not executed the bond as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge he shall do so within two weeks from this day, subject to the condition of depositing the amount within the time granted by this Court. Resultantly this petition is disposed of granting one month's further time from this day to the petitioner to deposit the amount of compensation as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks