Kerala High Court
Manikuttan vs Johnson John on 30 August, 2014
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2017/2ND ASHADHA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 4314 of 2017 ()
---------------------------
CRA 263/2014 of SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA
CC 198/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
AMBALAPUZHA
-------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
---------------------
MANIKUTTAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O. CHELLAPPAN, RESHMA NIVAS,
PARATHARAPARAMBU COLONY, KARUMADY,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN
SMT.T.J.SEEMA
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE :
-----------------------------
1. JOHNSON JOHN, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O. JOSEPH, KILIYATTU ILLOM, KOMANA,
AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 565.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
Crl.MC.No. 4314 of 2017 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C NO.
198/2013 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, AMBALAPUZHA DATED
30.08.2014.
ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SESSIONS
JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA DATED 11.07.2016 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 263/2014.
ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN CRL R.P NO. 688/2016 DATED
20.10.2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
bp
"C.R"
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
================== Crl.M.C.No. 4314 of 2017 ================== Dated this theO23rd day of June, 2017 R D E R The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act as per Anx.A-1 judgment dated 30.8.2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ambalapuzha, in C.C.No. 198/2013, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein (complainant). Accordingly, the trial court had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the abovesaid offence and to pay compensation of Rs. 2.05 lakhs under Sec. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C., with the default sentence clause of 3 months. The sentence was confirmed by the appellate sessions court (Court of Sessions Judge, Alappuzha) as per Anx.A-2 judgment dated 11.7.2016 in Crl.Appeal No.263/2014. But the appellate court had reduced the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for one year imposed by the trial court, to imprisonment till rising of the court and has confirmed the compensation of Rs.2.05 lakhs and the default sentence clause was also reduced to 2 months. This was challenged in revision before this Court, which led Anx. A-3 order dated 20.10.2016 of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.688/2016, whereby this Court has confirmed the conviction and the modified sentence imposed on the petitioner by the appellate Crl.M.C.4314/17 - : 2 :-
court, but has granted six months' time to the petitioner to pay the compensation amount of Rs.2.05 lakhs and thereby, directed that the proceedings for execution of the impugned sentence in this case will be kept in abeyance for 6 months, which would resume after expiry of the said period, in case of default.
2. The petitioner would state the six months' time limit stipulated in Anx.A-3 order passed by this Court was upto 30.4.2017 and that due to financial difficulties, he could not raise the compensation amount within the said time limit, but that now he is in a position to pay off the entire compensation amount to the complainant within a short time. The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of the non payment of the compensation within the time limited stipulated in Anx.A- 3 order, the trial court has set in motion the execution of the impugned sentence and that non bailable warrant has now been issued against him, whereby, not only the substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court and even the default sentence clause of 2 months would be executed by the trial court, on the premise that the default sentence clause automatically be set in operation, if the compensation amount was not paid within the abovesaid time limit. It is in the light of these facts and circumstances that the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the following prayers:
"i) issue a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court Ambalapuzha to recall the conviction warrant issued in C.C Crl.M.C.4314/17 - : 3 :-
No.198/2013 in execution of default sentence for nonpayment of compensation and direct his releasefor on proof of payment of compensation when he appears receiving substantive imprisonment;
ii) direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha to execute the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court imposed by this Hon'ble Court in CrilR.P. No. 688/2016 on any day fixed afresh by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Heard Smt.V.Bhavana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (accused) and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to R-1 (complainant) will stand dispensed with.
4. The question that is posed for determination in this case is as to whether the default sentence clause will set in operation merely on account of non payment of the fine/compensation amount by the accused within the time stipulated in the judgment of the trial court or appellate court or revisional court, as the case may be.
5. Smt.V.Bhavana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accused would place reliance on Secs.68 and 69 of the I.P.C., more particularly on Sec. 68., which read as follows:
"Sec.68. Imprisonment to terminate on payment of fine.- The imprisonment which is imposed in default of payment of a fine shall terminate whenever that fine is either paid or levied by process of law.
Sec.69. Termination of imprisonment on payment of proportional part of fine- If, before the expiration of the term of imprisonment fixed in default of payment, such a proportion of the fine be paid or levied that the term of imprisonment suffered in default of payment is not less than proportional to the part of Crl.M.C.4314/17 - : 4 :-
the fine still unpaid, the imprisonment shall terminate."
6. The aforementioned issue has been considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case in Girish v. Muthoot Capital Service (P) Ltd. reported 2007 (1) KLT 16, wherein this Court has held in para 4 thereof, that whenever a direction for payment of fine/compensation is issued along with the rider that in default of payment of fine/compensation, the indictee must undergo default sentence, such default sentence shall lapse at any time when the payment is made either before or after the default sentence starts running. When the court concerned or the superior courts grant time for payment and stipulate a date for payment, it only means and implies that the default sentence shall not be executed till that day and action should not be taken to execute the sentence till the prescribed date. However, if the accused does not appear on or before that day, the court can enforce the presence of the accused by issue of coercive process or by taking action against the sureties if grounds exist. But such stipulations cannot be read or understood to imply that thereafter even if the amount of fine/ compensation were paid in full, the default sentence will have to be undergone. It will be profitable to refer to para 4 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:
"4. The apprehension appears to be totally unfounded. Similar requests are made in many other petitions also. It is hence that I propose to consider this apprehension of the petitioner in detail. Whenever a direction for payment of fine/compensation is issued along with the rider Crl.M.C.4314/17 - : 5 :-
that in default of payment of fine/ compensation, the indictee must undergo default sentence, such default sentence shall lapse at any time when the payment is made either before or after the default sentence starts running. The apprehension aired by the counsel appears to me to be totally unjustified. When the court concerned or the superior courts grant time for payment and stipulates a date for payment it only means and implies that the default sentence shall not be executed till that day. Action should not be taken to execute the sentence till the prescribed date. If the accused does not appear on or before that day, the court can enforce the presence of the accused by issue of coercive process or by taking action against the sureties if grounds exist. But such stipulations cannot be read or understood to imply that thereafter even if the amount of fine / compensation were paid in full the default sentence will have to be undergone. This appears to be clear and unambiguous from Ss.68 & 69 of the I.P.C., which read as follows "68. Imprisonment to terminate on payment of fine.- The imprisonment which is imposed in default of payment of a fine shall terminate whenever that fine is either paid or levied by process of law.
proportional part of fine- If, before the expiration ofpayment
69. Termination of imprisonment on of the term of imprisonment fixed in default of payment, such a proportion of the fine be paid or levied that the term of imprisonment suffered in default of payment is not less than proportional to the part of the fine still unpaid, the imprisonment shall terminate."
The language of the Sections is clear and eloquent. When payment is made there can be no question of any default sentence"
7. It may be noted that the link between the provision in the I.P.C. as in Secs.68 and 69 of the I.P.C. with the offence in a special enactment like the Negotiable Instruments Act has not been explicitly mentioned in the said decision of this Court in Girish v. Muthoot Capital Service (P) Ltd.'s case supra. It will be relevant to note that Chapter III of the I.P.C. is with the caption, "OF PUNISHMENTS" and Sec.53 thereof provides as follows:
"Sec.53. Punishments.--The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are--
First.- Death;
Secondly.--Imprisonment for life;
Crl.M.C.4314/17 - : 6 :-
2[***]
Fourthly.- Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely:--
(1) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour;
Fifthly -(2) Simple;
Forfeiture of property;
Sixthly.-Fine." (emphasis supplied)
Sec. 25 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act 10 of 1897) deals with recovery of fines and stipulates as follows:
"Sec.25: Recovery of fines.- Sections 63 of 70 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (5 of 1898)] for the time being in force in relation to the issue and the execution of warrants for the levy of fines shall apply to all fines imposed under any Act, Regulation, rule or bye-law unless the Act, Regulation, rule, or bye-law contains an express provisions to the contrary."
It is well established in various rulings as the one rendered by the Bombay High Court, reported in 2007 (1) AIR Bom. R(NOC), etc. that by the mandate of Sec. 25 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the provisions in Secs.63 to 70 of the I.P.C. are made applicable to all fines imposed under the authority of any Act, unless such Act contains an express provision to the contrary. It has been, inter-alia, held by the Apex Court in the judgment in Shantilal v. State of M.P. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 243, p.255, para 30 that a bare reading of the provision contained in Sec. 25 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would make it explicitly clear and leaves no room for doubt that the provisions in Secs. 63 to 70 and the provisions of the Cr.P.C., will apply to the issue of recovery of fines and the execution of levy of fines shall apply to all fines imposed under any Act, Regulation, etc. unless, the enactment regulation, etc. contains an express provision to the contrary. In the instant case, it appears that Crl.M.C.4314/17 - : 7 :-
there are no specific provisions either in the Negotiable Instruments Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure to regulate the scenario as to the operation of the default sentence clause on non payment of fine/compensation, especially in cases where the accused has subsequently been able to pay off the fine/compensation amount. Therefore, the provisions contained in Secs.68 and 69 of the I.P.C. and the principles flowing therefrom would aptly apply to such a scenario. The question as to whether the High Court by invoking the inherent powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. could accept the post revisional composition entered into between the accused and the complainant and whether such acceptance of such post revisional composition by the court would amount to review of its own earlier judgment, came to the consideration of this Court in case in the case in Beena v. Balakrishnan Nair reported in 2010 (2) KLT 1017. In that case, after final orders regarding the conviction and sentence, the accused had paid the amount of compensation for offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the accused had paid the compensation amount directly to the complainant and sought a direction to the magistrate to accept the petition to compound the offence, etc. It was held in para 3 thereof that the acceptance of composition which has the effect of acquittal of the accused after the case is finally disposed of and after the judgment or final order is signed, amounts to review of the judgment and reopening Crl.M.C.4314/17 - : 8 :-
of the case, which is barred under Sec.362 of the Cr.P.C. However, in para 5 of the said decision, it was held that even though the final order in the Criminal Revision Petition had directed to accused to remit the fine before the trial court, etc., since the accused had already paid the said amount to the complainant to his satisfaction, what is required is only to make necessary entries in the fine register that the amount of fine has been paid to the complainant and accordingly, this Court directed the trial court to accept the statement that may be filed by the complainant regarding the receipt of the compensation amount and close the matter accordingly. It will be profitable to refer to para 5 of the said judgment in Beena's case supra, which reads as follows:
"5. That however, cannot be the end of the matter so far as grievance of petitioners is concerned. According to the petitioners they have already paid amount payable to respondent No.1 . That is revealed from petitions filed by them in this Court. True, by the final orders disposing of Revision Petitions this Court while modifying the sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court sentenced petitioners to payment of fine which is to be deposited in the court concerned and directed that fine if realised will be paid to respondent No.1 under S.357 (1)(b) of the Code. The proper procedure for petitioners was to deposit fine in the court concerned so that such court would pay the said amount to respondent No.1 as provided under S.357(1)(b) of the Code after making necessary entries in the fine register of that court. Now that petitioners have paid the amount to respondent No.1 to their satisfaction, what is required is only to make necessary entries in the fine register that amount of fine is realised and paid to respondent No.1. In the particular facts and circumstances of these cases I direct the learned Magistrate that if respondent No.1 filed a statement within one month from this day in the court concerned through his counsel in that court acknowledging receipt of amount of fine ordered to be paid as per final order disposing of the Revision Petitions, learned Magistrate will accept that as sufficient compliance of direction contained in the orders disposing of the Revision Petitions and make necessary entires in the fine register as if fine is realised and paid to respondent No.1 and close the matter accordingly.
The warrant of arrest if any issued against petitioners will stand in abeyance during the said period of one month or statement is filed in the court concerned and necessary entry in the fine register is made, Crl.M.C.4314/17 - : 9 :-
whichever is earlier."
Therefore, from a reading of the said judgment it is clear that any tinkering with the conviction, substantive sentence, fine/ compensation amount, default clause, etc. after the final judgment in the matter of conviction of an accused, would be totally barred in view of the provisions contained in Sec. 362 of the Cr.P.C., which mandates that save as otherwise provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no court when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, etc.
8. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Sreedharan v. Bharathan reported in 2014 (1) KLT 236 has clearly held that grant of enlargement of time after final disposal of the case, for making payment of the compensation/fine will not amount to review of the judgment. It was also held by the Division Bench that by post revisional composition is not permissible even by invoking Sec.482 Cr.P.C., for, that will have the effect of setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Court and confirmed or modified in revision and would invite the interdiction contained in S.362 Cr.P.C. Incidentally in para 11 of the said judgment in Sreedharan's case supra, their Lordships of the Division Bench have referred to the judgment of the learned Single Judge in K.G.Girish Kumar's case reported in 2007 (1) KLT 16 and reference in that judgment Crl.M.C.4314/17 - : 10 :-
to Secs.68 and 69 of the IPC. Para 11 of the said judgment of the Division Bench reads as follows:
"11. R.Basant (J), a learned Judge of this Court has in his judgment in K.G.Girish Kumar v. Muthoot Capital Service Pvt. Ltd. (2007 (1) KLT 16) laid down, referring Sections 68 and 69 of I.P.C. that the stipulations in a judgment fixing a date for payment of the fine amount and providing for default sentence of imprisonment on failure to pay fine are not to be read or understood to imply that thereafter even if the amount of fine is paid in full the default sentence will have to be undergone. Having regard to the nature of the offence under S.138, we feel that in situations where the accused is ready to pay the compensation amount to the satisfaction of the complainant and the complainant is willing to receive the compensation amount from the accused the endeavour of the court should be to facilitate such payment and receipt albeit a little delay as the same will result in extinction of all causes of action and grant full and final relief to both sides."
9. In the light of these aspects, this Court is of the view that the plea made by the petitioner could be considered in these proceedings.
However, prayer No.i appears to be couched in rather wide and loose terms and it does not throw any light as to whether the petitioner has already made the payment or as to the time required for such payment. However, it is indicated in Ground B of this petition that the compensation was not deposited in the court and that it implies that the compensation amount has been paid directly to the complainant, but when exactly the said amount was paid, has not been averred in the petition. The copy of the said receipt evidencing payment has also not been produced in this petition. Accordingly, the following directions and orders are passed:
(i) The petitioner will appear before the trial court on any day on or before 3 weeks from the date notified for receiving the certified copy of this order and then on that day, he will receive the sentence of imprisonment Crl.M.C.4314/17 - : 11 :-
till rising of the court.
(ii) The petitioner produce necessary receipts evidencing payment of the compensation amount directly to the complainant. It should also be ensured that the complainant files a memo or statement before the trial court through his counsel acknowledging the factum of receipt of the compensation amount from the petitioner in this case and that he has no further grievances in relation to the dishonoured cheque in question.
(iii) If the trial court is satisfied that the complainant has no further grievances against the petitioner in the matter of payment of the compensation amount, then there is no question of putting into operation the default sentence clause. On default of the petitioner to pay the compensation amount, he will have to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months.
(iv) Until the petitioner appears before the trial court within the abovesaid time limit, all coercive steps taken against the petitioner including non-
bailable warrant issued against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance.
(v) The learned Prosecutor appearing in this case will communicate this direction to the competent Police authorities concerned. With these observations and directions, the Crl.M.C. stands finally disposed of.
sdk+ ALEXANDERSd/-THOMAS, JUDGE
///True Copy///
P.S. to Judge