Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHERUPARAMBATH UNNI versus THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


CHERUPARAMBATH UNNI v. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 474 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 4055 (23 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 474 of 2007()

1. CHERUPARAMBATH UNNI,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. PANCHARAYIL KUTTIMON,

For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :23/02/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.474 of 2007

Dated this the 23rd day of February 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence have now become final subject to the modification as per the order dated 03/11/2006 in Crl.R.P.No.2328 of 2005. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and "to pay" an amount of Rs.70,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of three months. The petitioner was directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 15/01/2007. Later, the petitioner came before this court and this court, by order dated 24/01/2007 directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- within a period of ten days whereupon the petitioner was held entitled to time till 24/02/2007 to appear before the learned Magistrate, to pay the amount and avoid the default sentence.

2. According to the petitioner, he has deposited Rs.20,000/- and paid the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- to the Crl.M.C.No.474/07 2 complainant. In these circumstances, the default sentence is not liable to be executed against him, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. That appears to be an absolutely correct submission in as much as there was no direction ever to the petitioner to deposit the amount of compensation and the direction advisedly was only "to pay" the amount. The petitioner and the complainant can appear before the learned Magistrate and satisfy the learned Magistrate that an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been paid and together with the amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited, the petitioner has discharged the liability. If the learned Magistrate is satisfied with the said payment/deposit have been made, there can be no question of the default sentence being executed against the petitioner. The amount deposited shall be released to the complainant also.

3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is, in these circumstances, allowed and the above directions/observations are made. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr Crl.M.C.No.474/07 3 Crl.M.C.No.474/07 4

R.BASANT, J

C.R.R.P.No.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF JULY 2006


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.