Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJENDRAN @ SURENDRAN S/O.CHELLAPPAN versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAJENDRAN @ SURENDRAN S/O.CHELLAPPAN v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE - Crl MC No. 1842 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 9907 (8 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1842 of 2007()

1. RAJENDRAN @ SURENDRAN S/O.CHELLAPPAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :08/06/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 1842 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 8th day of June, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner was the second accused and faced indictment for offences, inter alia, under Sections 468 and 420 I.P.C. His plea of guilty was accepted. He was convicted. No sentence was imposed on him, but the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act were invoked in his favour. He was, inter alia, directed to pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- as compensation on or before the expiry of the period of probation i.e. a period of two years. It was further observed that if the amounts were not paid within two years, the petitioner is liable to be sentenced.

2. The time for payment has already expired on 7.3.2007. The learned Magistrate is taking steps to implement the direction in the judgment of conviction. The petitioner at this stage had come to this court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The short submission is that there was an unfortunate omission on the part of the petitioner to make he payment. He has not been able to raise the Crl.M.C.No. 1842 of 2007 2 amount. A short further time may be granted to raise the amount and to avoid the consequences which are ordered to follow.

3. Notice given to the learned Prosecutor. The learned Prosecutor does not seriously oppose the said prayer. A short further time alone may be granted, submits the Prosecutor.

4. The lapse on the part of the petitioner is gross. Eventhough he was granted a period of two years, he has not chosen to pay the amount of compensation or any part of it. However, I take a lenient view and observe that if the petitioner pays the said amount on or before 18.6.2007, the same shall be considered as sufficient compliance with the order of the learned Magistrate. The petitioner shall not be entitled for any further time.

5. This Crl.M.C. is allowed to the above extent.

6. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


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.