IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 12 of 2011() ----------------------- CRMP.3712/2010 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.646/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC NO.33/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PATTAMBI .................... PETITIONER(S): APELLANT IN THE APPEAL ------------------------------------- V.A.ABDUL LATHEEF,S/O.AHAMMED,AGED 55, VARIKKADAN VEEDU,PALLIPARAKARA PALLIKAVALAYIL, MARAMBILLI VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. SHAJITHA,AGED 25, W/O.ABDUL SATHAR, CHERIYATHUVALAPPIL VEEDU,KUMARANELLUR AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK 679 552. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K. FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.12 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioner faced trial in C.C.No.33 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.1, petitioner issued the cheque in dispute for the discharge of liability to the tune of `.15 lakhs and the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Learned Magistrate convicted petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months. There was also a direction for payment of `.15 lakhs as compensation with a default clause. Petitioner preferred Crl.Appeal No.646 of 2010. Learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad while suspending the sentence imposed a condition that petitioner shall deposit 1/5th of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Magistrate and granted six weeks time (from the date of order – November 23, 2010). Annexure-A1 is under challenge. Learned counsel submits that on the facts and circumstances learned Sessions Judge ought not have imposed condition and at any rate the amount directed to be deposited is excessive. 2. It is not as if learned Sessions Judge acted without authority in imposing a condition for grant of stay of execution of sentence which included a direction for payment of compensation to the tune of `.15 lakhs. Then the Crl.M.C.No.12/2011 2 question is whether the amount directed to be deposited is excessive. I must bear in mind that the amount involved as found by the learned Magistrate is `.15 lakhs and that what the learned Sessions Judge has directed is deposit of only 1/5th of the said amount (ie. Rupees three lakhs only). I must also bear in mind that the proceedings were initiated before the learned Magistrate in the year 2009. Having regard to these aspects I am not persuaded to think that the amount directed to be deposited is excessive so that this Court is required to interfere under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. As per Annexure-A1, order learned Sessions Judge has granted six weeks' time to the petitioner to deposit the amount. If petitioner is not able to raise the amount within the said period it will be open to the petitioner to request learned Sessions Judge for extension of time for deposit of the amount and if any such request is made learned Sessions Judge shall consider the request sympathetically having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. This petition is disposed of with the above direction. Crl.M.A.No.26 No.2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks