IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1002 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CC.188/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- S. SINDHU, ASWATHY BHAVAN, PATHIRAPPALLY ROAD, CHOOZHAMPALA, MUKKOLA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SREEKUMARAN NAIR, OFFICER OPERATIONS, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., HOUSING CENTRE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1002 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 23rd March 2010 O R D E R Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by Annexure-A judgment in C.C.188/2002. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.553/2003. By Annexure-B order appeal was dismissed confirming conviction and sentence. Confirmed sentence is fine of Rs.1,06,002/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months, with a direction that on realisation if fine, Rs.1,01,002/- is to be paid to first respondent as compensation. According to the petitioner he had paid the amount to the first respondent directly and therefore, he need not pay any balance amount and the warrant Crmc 1002/10 2 issued for execution of the sentence is to be re-called. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to re-call the warrant and to drop the proceedings against the petitioner on payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. By Annexure-A judgment petitioner was sentenced to a fine of Rs.1,06,002/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months. Though it was challenged in Crl.A.553/2003, conviction and sentence was confirmed. It is on the failure of the petitioner to pay fine as directed in Annexure-A judgment, learned Crmc 1002/10 3 Magistrate initiated steps for realisation of the fine. True, Annexure-A judgment provides that on realisation of fine, Rs.1,01,002/- is to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Neither Annexure-A nor Annexure-B judgment provides that petitioner has to pay a portion of the fine which is to be paid to the complainant, directly to the complainant. Still, if the case of the petitioner is that he has paid that portion of the fine to the complainant directly, it is upto the petitioner to satisfy the Chief Judicial Magistrate that portion of the fine amount which is to be paid to the first respondent as complainant was paid directly inadvertently. If petitioner satisfies the learned Magistrate that portion of the fine amount which is to be paid as Crmc 1002/10 4 compensation on realisation by the court was paid to the first respondent directly, learned Magistrate not to insist for depositing that portion of the amount before the court so as to pay the same to the first respondent again. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.