Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

IBRAHIMKUTTY, S/O.ABOOBACKER KUNJU versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


IBRAHIMKUTTY, S/O.ABOOBACKER KUNJU v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 2241 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 12829 (12 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2241 of 2007()

1. IBRAHIMKUTTY, S/O.ABOOBACKER KUNJU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

For Petitioner :SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :12/07/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C. NO. 2241 OF 2007

Dated this the 12th day of July, 2007

ORDER

The petitioner has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He preferred an appeal. Before preferring the appeal, he filed an application before the learned Magistrate under Sec.389(3) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate directed under Sec.389(3) of the Cr.P.C. that the petitioner must deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- as cash security. The amount was deposited. The petitioner preferred an appeal. In the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge suspended the sentence on condition that the petitioner executes a bond for Rs.40,000/- with two solvent sureties. The learned Sessions Judge did not insist on deposit of any further amount. In view of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner approached the learned Magistrate for release of Crl.M.C. NO. 2241 OF 2007 -: 2 :- the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by him. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order - Annexure-A3, did not accept the request and rejected the petition. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said order - Annexure-A3.

2. The learned Sessions Judge had directed the suspension of the sentence on condition that a bond must be executed. No direction for payment appears to have been made. Obviously, the learned Sessions Judge appears to have been influenced by the fact that already an amount of Rs.50,000/- is lying in deposit as directed by learned Magistrate while passing the order under Sec.389(3) of the Cr.P.C. If the petitioner wants to get release of the said amount, he must certainly approach the learned Sessions Judge who passed Annexure-A2 order and seek a direction of the appellate court for release of the amount. The learned Sessions Judge will then consider whether the amount in deposit is liable to be released.

3. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge Crl.M.C. NO. 2241 OF 2007 -: 3 :-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.