Kerala High Court
K.V.George vs Integrated Finance Co. Ltd on 30 June, 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY,THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/16TH PHALGUNA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2721 of 2005 ( )
---------------------------------
(CRL.A.NO.1168/2004 OF IST ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,
ERNAKULAM DATED 30-06-2005)
(CC.NO. 246/2001 OF ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM
DATED 29-11-2004)
-------------------
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
K.V.GEORGE,
KUPPAYIL HOUSE,
THIRUVANIYOOR P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VIA,
ERNAKULAM DT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SUNU P.JOHN
SMT.SHEEBA V.GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. INTEGRATED FINANCE CO. LTD.,
39/5682, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD,
KOCHI-15, REP.BY RECOVERY EXECUTIVE.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.RAJAN
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07-03-2017, ALONG WITH CRL.RP.NO. 2729 OF 2005 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.Nos.2721, 2729, 3112, 3118 &
3121 of 2005 and Crl.R.P.No.3881 of 2007
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2017
O R D E R
These six Criminal Revision Petitions have arisen out of six private criminal complaints before the same trial court alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the very same complainant against the very same accused. The accused in these cases is the revision petitioner and complainant is the first respondent Company. The trial court concerned in these cases is the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.
2. The complaints have been filed by the first respondent herein, alleging that the postdated cheques executed by the accused in pursuance of a hire purchase agreement, for the purchase of a Swaraj Mazda Vehicle, when presented on the respective due dates for payment of those respective monthly instalments had resulted in dishonour and after the compliance of the requisite formalities, the first respondent had instituted separate eight criminal complaints before the learned Magistrate alleging the abovesaid offence against the petitioner/ accused. In two such complaints (C.C.No.883 of 2001 and C.C.No.826 of 1999), out of the total eight cases, the petitioner was acquitted by the Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::2::
trial court against which the complainant has not preferred any appeal and those judgments of acquittal have become final. The petitioner was acquitted in those two cases mainly on the ground that the vehicle, which was the subject matter of the hire purchase agreement, was taken possession by the complainant in May/June 2000, whereas the two dishonoured cheques in question in those two cases were presented only after such repossession. Therefore, the trial court in those two cases held that the consideration in respect of those two cheques issued in respect of the monthly EMI for the hire purchase agreement, has failed as envisaged in Section 43 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the light of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the case in Sudha Beevi v. State of Kerala reported in (2004 (2) KLT 746). In the said ruling in Sudha Beevi's case, this Court held that when the vehicle has been repossessed prior to the actual presentation of the postdated cheques, then going by the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement, the agreement itself stands ipso facto terminated and that consideration also fails, then therefore, such a cheque is one without consideration as envisaged in Section 43 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, in these six cases, the date of presentation of the six dishonoured cheques in question, was prior to Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::3::
the date of repossession of the vehicle.
3. Heard Sri.Sunu.P.John, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused, Sri.T.S.Rajan, learned counsel appearing for R1/complainant and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned prosecutor appearing for R2/State.
4. The trial court has convicted the petitioner in these cases and the sentence imposed has been one of fine. It will be advantageous to make a brief reference about the minimal factual details in each of these six cases.
Crl.R.P.No.2721 of 2005
5. This case arises out of the impugned judgment in Crl.Appeal No.1168 of 2004 on the file of the Ist Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, which in turn had arisen out of C.C.246 of 2001 on the file of the trial court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam). Exhibit P2 cheque No.13778 dated 12.5.2000 for Rs.18,893/- drawn on Bank of India, Thiruvaniyoor Branch, and issued by the petitioner was presented by the complainant before the State Bank of Travancore, Cochin Shipyard Branch, which got dishonoured on the ground of `insufficient funds' and the intimation regarding the dishonour was received by the complainant on 12.5.2000. In this case, Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::4::
the cheque amount was for Rs.18,893/- (which is the monthly instalment under the hire purchase agreement) and the trial court had imposed a fine of Rs.20,000/- on the accused and in default thereof, he was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. It is further ordered that an amount of Rs.19,000/- should be paid to the complainant from out of the said fine amount as envisaged in Section 357 of the Cr.P.C.
Crl.R.P.No.2729 of 2005
6. This revision arises out of Crl.Appeal No.1170 of 2004 on the file of the abovesaid appellate court, which in turn has arisen out of C.C.No. 755 of 2001 on the file of the trial court. In this case, Exhibit P8 cheque dated 12.4.2000 for Rs.18,893/- was dishonoured and the dishonoured intimation memo has been received by the complainant on 24.5.2000. The trial court has imposed a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default thereof, the accused was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Out of the said fine amount of Rs.20,000/-, an amount of Rs.19,000/- has been directed to be disbursed to the complainant as compensation.
Crl.R.P.No.3112 of 2005
7. This revision petition arises out of Crl.Appeal No.510 of Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::5::
2004 on the file of the Second Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, which in turn has arisen out of C.C.No.460 of 2000 on the file of the trial court. In this case, 4 cheques (Exhibits P13, P14, P15 & P16) bearing dates 12.5.1999, 12.6.1999, 12.7.1999 and 12.8.1999, each for Rs.18,893 (thus totalling to Rs.75,572), was dishonoured on 27.9.1999 on the ground of `insufficient funds'. The trial court has imposed a fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default thereof, the accused was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 28 days and from out of the said fine amount, an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the complainant.
Crl.R.P.No.3118 of 2005
8. This revision petition has arisen out of Crl.Appeal No.509 of 2004 on the file of the Second Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, which in turn has arisen out of C.C.No.114 of 2000 on the file of the trial court. In this case, a cheque dated 12.9.1999 for Rs.18,893, was dishonoured on 17.9.1999 on the ground of `insufficient funds' and intimation was received by the complainant on 28.9.1999. The trial court has imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- on the accused and in default thereof, he was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days. From out of the said fine amount, an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::6::
awarded as compensation to the complainant.
Crl.R.P.No.3121 of 2005
9. This case arises out of Crl.Appeal No.511 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, and the complaint in this case is C.C.No.826 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. A cheque dated 12.3.1999 for Rs.18,893/- was dishonoured on 23.3.1999. The trial court has imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- on the accused and in default thereof, he was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days and from out of the said fine amount an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the complainant.
Crl.R.P.No.3881 of 2007
10. This revision arises out of Crl.Appeal No.268 of 2005 on the file of III Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, which in turn has arisen out of C.C.No.873 of 2001 on the file of the trial court. Here a cheque dated 12.10.2000 for Rs.18,893/- was dishonoured for which intimation was received by the complainant on 28.4.2000. The trial court has imposed a fine amount of Rs.23,000/- on the accused and in default thereof, he was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Out of the said fine amount, an amount of Rs.22,000/- has been Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::7::
awarded to the complainant as compensation.
11. The main case of the complainant is that the accused had availed vehicle loan of Rs.5,12,050/- from the first respondent/complainant Company to purchase Swaraj Mazda vehicle bearing registration No.KL/7U 1708 under the hire purchase agreement No.HP980000 0082 dated 12.6.1998 (marked as Exhibit P22 in C.C.No.460 of 2000 which has led to Crl.R.P.No.3112 of 2005). Towards discharge of the liability, the accused had issued 36 postdated cheques for payment of 36 monthly instalments, thus each of the cheque amount was for Rs.18,893/-, which is the monthly instalment amount. Thus, as per the hire purchase agreement, the total amount will be paid in 36 monthly instalments, which comes to Rs.6,80,148/- (viz.18,893/-x36=6,80,148). The cheques involved in these cases were presented for collection and these cheques were returned on the ground of `insufficiency of funds' which resulted in the issuance of the statutory demand notice and the subsequent institution of the complaints alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that based on the documentary evidence adduced before the courts below, especially D1 to D9 and D11 and D12, the petitioner has paid the entire due amounts Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::8::
to the complainant Finance Company. More particularly, it is also urged that in most of these cases, the undisputed defence documents produced in these cases would prove that the complainant Company has received more than the cheque amounts in each of these cases prior to the presentation of the cheques and that since these part payments, which were admittedly received by the complainant, have not been endorsed in the cheque which was presented, then no offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will lie in view of the provision contained in Section 56 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the light of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the case in Joseph Sartho v. Gopinathan Nair reported in (2008 (4) KLT 509). Further it is also contended that in one case (Crl.R.P.No.3881 of 2007), much more than the entire amount covered by the dishonoured cheque for Rs.18,893/- was already received by the first respondent as per Exhibit D11 document as early as in the year 1998. Therefore, there was no consideration for that cheque in view of Section 43 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that therefore, no offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would lie, etc.
12. As per Exhibit D2, the main case of the accused is that though the loan agreement as to the hire purchase agreement was for Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::9::
Rs.5,12,050/-, he had already paid an advance amount as per Exhibit D2 coming to Rs.1,05,000/- and therefore, the loan amount actually availed by him comes only to Rs.4,70,050/- (viz.,Rs.5,12,050- Rs.1,05,000= Rs.4,70,050). Thereafter, the petitioner has paid Rs.1,78,000/- under Exhibits D4 to D9 and D11 and D12 receipts issued by the complainant, pass book of the accused, DD challan, etc. Later in June 2000, the complainant Company had repossessed the vehicle and had sold the same in September 2000 for an amount of Rs.2,59,100/- as deposed by PW1 (see page 10 of the deposition of PW1 in C.C.No.460 of 2000, which has led to Crl.R.P.No.3112 of 2005). Exhibit D10 is the telegram dated 2.6.2000 sent by the complainant to the accused informing about repossession of the vehicle. After adjusting the sale price of the vehicle, the total amount paid by the accused is Rs.5,42,100/-. The accused has paid the said amount within two years from the date of disbursement of the loan. As per the hire purchase agreement, he had to pay Rs.6,80,108/- within three years (36 months). Further that even according to the complainant, the loan amount is Rs.5,12,050/- and that up to 24th instalment, the amount to be paid is Rs.4,53,432/- whereas accused has paid Rs.5,42,100/-. Hence, no amount is to be paid to the complainant by the accused in these Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::10::
transactions.
13. It is to be noted that all these defence documents marked as Exhibits D1 to D12 are admitted even by the complainant as correct and has not been in any manner disputed by the complainant. Moreover, all these defence documents have been marked by none other than PW1, who is the power of attorney holder of the complainant Company. The undisputed facts in these cases would disclose the following details. The loan amount as per the hire purchase agreement comes to Rs.5,12,000/-. As per Exhibit D2, the petitioner has advanced an amount of Rs.1,05,050. Therefore, the actual loan amount comes to Rs.4,70,050/-. The total payments covered by Exhibits D4 to D9 and D11 and D12 comes to Rs.1,78,000/-. The details are as follows :
D4- Payment receipt dated 17.6.1999 Rs.38,000.00 D5- Payment receipt dated 24.7.1999 Rs.19,000.00 D6- Payment receipt dated 20.7.1999 Rs.10,000.00 D7- Payment receipt dated 21.9.1999 Rs.15,000.00 D8- Payment receipt dated 8.11.1999 Rs.10,000.00 D9- Payment receipt dated 27.12.1999 Rs.10,000.00 D11- Bank Passbook Rs.57,000.00 D12- D.D. Counterfoil dated 8.2.1999 Rs.19,000.00 Total Rs.1,78,000/-
Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::11::
14. PW1 has clearly deposed before the trial court that the vehicle was sold in June 2000 for an amount of Rs.2,59,100/-. Thus within a period of two years from the date of hire purchase agreement dated 12.6.1998 up to the date of sale of the vehicle in June 2000, the petitioner has paid the abovesaid amount of Rs.5,42,100/-. The said amount of Rs.5,42,100/- consists of Rs.1,05,000/- (advance amount paid by the petitioner as per Exhibit D2) + Rs.1,78,000/- (amounts covered by Exhibit D2 to D9, D11 & D12) + Rs.2,59,100/- (sale price of the vehicle), thus totaling to Rs.5,42,100/-. It is also to be seen that as per the hire purchase agreement, the total period for payment is 36 months (3 years) and the total amount to be paid within 36 months (3 years) comes to Rs.6,80,148/- consisting of Rs.18,893/- monthly instalmentx36 months = Rs.6,80,148/-. Thus as per the hire purchase agreement, the amount to be paid by the petitioner within two years (24 months) comes to Rs.4,53,432/- (Rs.18,893x24=Rs.4,53,432/-). As against the said amount of Rs.4,53,432/- the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.5,42,100/- within two years. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that since the vehicle was taken in repossession and was sold in June 2000 by the Company, the hire purchase agreement itself stands terminated and more than the due amounts have already Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::12::
been realised by the complainant Company within a period of two years from the commencement of the hire purchase agreement dated 12.6.1998 up to the date of resale in June 2000.
15. As regards the criminal culpability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the pointed contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused is that the aforestated repayments covered by Exhibit D4 to D9 and D11 and D12 have not been taken note or reckoned either by the trial court or by the appellate court in all these six cases.
16. In this regard, the petitioner places reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Joseph Sartho v.
Gopinathan Nair reported in (2008 (4) KLT 509). The said Division Bench judgment of this Court has been subsequently followed in many decisions as in John v. Alosious reported in (2010 (2) KLT 901), Santhosh.K.G. v. Nandakumar B. Menon and another reported in (2016 (1) KLT 390) = (2016 KHC 109), Shiju v. Nalini reported in (2016 (2) KLT 517), etc. The Division Bench in the aforestated judgment has held that when a portion of the amount covered by the cheque was repaid, the same has been endorsed on the cheque as required under Section 56 read with Section 15 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::13::
the complainant could not have negotiated that cheque for full amount and he could not have presented it for collection of the full amount.
17. Section 56 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as follows:
"56. Indorsement for part of sum due - No writing on a negotiable instrument is valid for the purpose of negotiation if such writing purports to transfer only a part of the amount appearing to be due on the instrument; but where such amount has been partly paid, a note to that effect may be indorsed on the instrument, which may then be negotiated for the balance."
Section 15 provides as follows :
"15. Indorsement- When the maker or holder of a negotiable instrument signs the same, otherwise than as such marker, for the purpose of negotiation, on the back or face thereof or on a slip of paper annexed thereto, or so signes for the same purpose a stamped paper intended to be completed as a negotiable instrument, he is said to indorse the same, and is called the "indorser."
Section 51 provides as follows :
"51. Who may negotiate - Every sole maker, drawer, payee or indorsee, or all of several joint makers, drawers, payees or indorsees, of a negotiable instrument may, if the negotiability of such instrument has not been restricted or excluded as mentioned in Section 50, indorse and negotiate the same.
Explanation:- Nothing in this section enables a maker or drawer to indorse or negotiate an instrument, unless he is in lawful possession or is holder thereof :- or enables a payee or indorsee to endorse or negotiate an instrument, unless he is holder thereof."
18. In the case dealt with by the Division Bench, part payment was made after the issuance of the cheque and before the presentation of the cheque. Therefore, it was held that the whole amount of debt or Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::14::
liability was lesser than the amount represented by the cheque and so if cheque for such an amount was dishonoured, the same will not be an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the whole amount of debt or liability was lesser than the amount represented by the cheque. That going by the plain words of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque presented for encashment should be one for payment in full or part of the debt due and in case where the cheque was for an amount which is higher than the amount due on the date it was presented for encashment, then the law contemplates making of indorsement by the drawee on the back amount regarding part payment received and so long as such indorsement is not made reflecting such part payment, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will not be attracted even if such a cheque gets dishonoured. The same legal position has been reiterated in the other aforestated judgments noted herein above.
19. As regards Crl.R.P.No.2721 of 2005, the cheque is dated 12.5.2000 for Rs.18,893/- and the dishonour memo is received on 12.5.2000. So also, in Crl.R.P.No.2729 of 2005, the cheque is dated 12.4.2000 for Rs.18,893/- and the dishonour is intimated on 24.5.2000.
Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::15::
In both these cases though the cheques are dated May/April, 2000, the same were actually executed and given to the complainant admittedly in June 1998 at the time of execution of the hire purchase agreement dated 12.6.1998. Subsequently, part payments have been made as reflected in aforementioned admitted defence documents which comes to much more than these cheque amounts. It is also not in dispute that the said part payments so received has not been duly indorsed in the cheque before presentation and therefore, the petitioner can get the benefit of the view taken by the Division Bench in Joseph Sartho's case (supra). The matter could be viewed from another angle also. If a strict view is taken that what is relevant is the date of presentation of the cheque, then it can be seen that in both these cases the date of presentation of the cheque was in April/May 2000 and whereas all these payments are seen made much before that. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the provision in Section 56 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not operate on the facts of this case, still it can be seen that the petitioner should certainly get the benefit of Section 43 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which reads as follows :
"43. Negotiable instrument made, etc., without consideration - A negotiable instrument made, drawn, accepted, indorsed, or transferred without consideration, or for a consideration which fails, creates no obligation of payment between the parties to the transaction. But if any such party has transferred the instrument with or without Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::16::
indorsement to a holder for consideration, such holder, and every subsequent holder deriving title from him, may recover the amount due on such instrument from the transferor for consideration or any prior party thereto.
Exception I. - No party for whose accommodation a negotiable instrument has been made, drawn, accepted or indorsed can, if he has paid the amount thereof, recover thereon such amount from any person who became a party to such instrument for his accommodation.
Exception II. - No party to the instrument who has induced any other party to make, draw, accept, indorse or transfer the same to him for a consideration which he has failed to pay or perform in full shall recover therein an amount exceeding the value of the consideration (if any) which he has actually paid or performed."
20. As the amounts have been paid much before the date of the cheque as well as the date of presentation of the cheque, the said cheque is one without any consideration as the amounts due have already been paid much prior to that date. Therefore, viewed from any angle the petitioner cannot be mulcted with the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in these two cases.
21. The date of presentation of the dishonoured cheque of these four cases is September, 1999. Before September, 1999, the petitioner has made payments as evidenced by Exhibit D4 dated 17.6.1999 (for Rs.38,000/-), Exhibit D5 dated 24.7.1999 (for Rs.19,000/-), Exhibit D6 dated 20.7.1999 (for Rs.10,000/-) and Exhibit D2 dated 11.6.1998, coming to Rs.1,05,000/-, thus totalling to Rs.1,72,000/-. These part payments covered by Exhibit D5 and D6 are apart from the earlier payments made under Exhibit D2 coming to Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::17::
Rs.1,05,000/-. The payments made under Exhibits D4, D5 and D6 are after the date of these cheques and before the presentation of the cheques. Admittedly, these part payments have not been indorsed in the cheque, as required under Section 56 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the view taken by the Division Bench in Joseph Sartho's case (supra).
22. As regards Crl.R.P.No.3118 of 2005, the cheque is dated 12.9.1999 for Rs.18,893/-, which has been dishonoured on 17.9.1999.
The payment as per Exhibit D-12 dated 8.2.1999 is for Rs.19,000/- and therefore, in view of the aforestated reasons, the petitioner should either get the benefit of Section 56 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or that of Section 43 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be mulcted with the criminal culpability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in this case as well.
23. As regards Crl.R.P.No.3121 of 2005, the cheque is dated 12.3.1999 for Rs.18,893/- and the dishonour is on 23.3.1999. In view of the prior payment under Exhibit D2 dated 11.6.1998 for Rs.1,05,000/-, the said cheque should be treated as the one without consideration as envisaged under Section 43 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and hence no offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::18::
could be made out against the petitioner.
24. As regards Crl.R.P.No.3881 of 2007, the cheque is dated 12.10.2000 for Rs.18,893/- and the dishonour intimation is received on 28.4.2000. In view of the prior payment as per Exhibit D2 dated 11.6.1998 for Rs.1,05,000/-, the said cheque is also without any consideration, going by the admitted facts of this case.
25. In the light of these aspects, it can be seen that in all the six cases, in view of the admitted payments made by the petitioner, the offence is not made out against the petitioner either in view of the non-compliance of Section 56 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or Section 43 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
26. All these crucial defence documents, which are admitted by the complainant, have not been taken into account either by the trial court or by the lower appellate court. Therefore, since there is no dispute on the factual aspect regarding the admitted prior payments, the petitioner is certainly entitled for the reversal of the impugned judgments and for consequent acquittal. Moreover, going by the dates of filing of the complaints, it can be seen that no amounts were actually due from the petitioner to the complainant. For all these reasons, the impugned judgments of the trial court and that of the appellate court in Crl.R.P.No.2721/2005 & con. cases ::19::
all these six cases will stand set aside. The petitioner will stand acquitted of the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that in one of these matters, the petitioner has deposited some amount before the trial court in compliance with the directions issued by this Court while admitting the revision petition as a condition for suspension of the impugned sentence. If the petitioner has deposited any amount before the trial court in connection with any of these cases as a condition precedent for suspension of the sentence, then the said amounts are to be forthwith disbursed to the petitioner on an application in that regard, which may be filed by the petitioner. The petitioner may produce the certified copy of this judgment before the trial court and make appropriate application. Upon receipt of such application, the trial court will take necessary action in that regard.
With these observations and directions, the aforecaptioned Criminal Revision Petitions will stand allowed.
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE csl