High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
KOMALAVALLY, W/O.SUKUMARAN v. JOY JOHN, S/O.JOHN, AGED 52 YEARS - Crl MC No. 337 of 2007  RD-KL 3018 (9 February 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl MC No. 337 of 2007()
1. KOMALAVALLY, W/O.SUKUMARAN,
1. JOY JOHN, S/O.JOHN, AGED 52 YEARS,
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.CRL.M.C. 337 OF 2007 Dt. FEBRUARY 9, 2006
ORDERPetitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The sentence imposed on her was simple imprisonment for six months. There was no order for fine nor any order for compensation under sec.357(3) Cr.P.C. Challenging the conviction entered and the sentence passed against her the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.27/2007 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. As per Crl.M.P.712/2007 she sought for a stay of suspension of the sentence. As per Annexure-I order dt.11.1.2007 the sentence was suspended on deposit of Rs.80,000/- within one month towards the cheque amount and on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two sureties before the trial court. It is the above order which is assailed in this Crl.M.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a case where a sentence of imprisonment alone is imposed on the accused, the maximum that can happen is a dismissal of her appeal in which case she will have to undergo imprisonment only. Hence the direction to deposit Rs.80,000/- passed by the lower appellate court is illegal. I cannot agree. It is now well settled that even in a case where a sentence of imprisonment alone has been passed, the appellate court can while finally disposing of the appeal modify the sentence by reducing CRL.M.C.337/2007 2 the imprisonment and directing payment of compensation under sec.357(3) Cr.P.C. If such an order can be passed at the stage of final disposal of the appeal, there is no reason why a direction to pay a part of the cheque amount cannot be granted at the interlocutory stage.
3. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a direction to deposit Rs.80,000/- appears to be on the higher side. In as much as Annexure-I order was passed at the ex parte stage, there is no question of hearing the complainant. Hence I am dispensing with notice to the 1st respondent/complainant. Annexure-I order is accordingly modified directing the petitioner/appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.25000/- within two weeks from today and to execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court. Annexure-I order in the appeal will stand modified to the above extent. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.