Kerala High Court
Mrs. Maggy Babu vs M/S. Resource India Kuries (P) Ltd on 21 March, 2014
Author: K.Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY,THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2014/30TH PHALGUNA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 1776 of 2014
----------------------------------
C.C.NO. 1562/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II,THRISSUR .
-----------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------
MRS. MAGGY BABU, AGED 32 YEARS,
W/O. BABU P.I, PANOKKARAN HOUSE, MEKKATUKULAM STREET,
P.O KURIYACHIRA, ANCHERY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.A.CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
------------------------------------------------------------
1. M/S. RESOURCE INDIA KURIES (P) LTD.,
PALLIKULAM ROAD, THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS LITIGATION CLERK, MR.JOHNY B.T.,
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, BRAHMAKULAM HOUSE,
ARANATTUKKARA-680 001.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
Crl. M.C. No. 1776 of 2014
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2014
O R D E R
This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking time to pay the amount and avoid execution proceedings being initiated on the basis of the judgment in C.C.No. 1562/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Thrissur under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 1562/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -III, Thrissur, which was taken on file on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent herein, alleging the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner had suffered an order of conviction and the learned Magistrate found the appellant guilty and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,92,000/- under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Eight months' time was also granted for payment of the amount. No default sentence was provided in the judgment.
3. Since she could not pay the amount within the time, now non-bailable warrant has been issued. According to the petitioner, Crl. M.C. No. 1776 of 2014 2 since it is a compensation, no warrant can be issued and warrant can be issued only to execute non-payment of fine only. Further it is also mentioned in the petition that if some time is granted, she is prepared to pay the amount. So she has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to recall the warrant issued by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Thrissur in C.C.No. 1562/2013 and stay all further proceedings pursuant to judgment dated 30.4.2013 in C.C.No. 1562/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court
-II, Thrissur".
4. Considering the nature of the relief claimed in the petition, this Court felt that the petition can be disposed of at the admission state itself dispensing with notice to the first respondent, who is the complainant in the lower court and hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor as well.
5. The fact that the petitioner suffered an order of conviction and sentence is evident from the judgment produced by the petitioner herself. She has not challenged the same by filing any appeal. However, maximum time was Crl. M.C. No. 1776 of 2014 3 given for payment of the amount as well in the judgment itself. The petitioner has no case that she had paid the amount. Further the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that since it is a compensation awarded, the court cannot realise the same by issuing warrant is unsustainable because compensation can be realised as if it is a fine and for realisation of fine, warrant can be issued. So the court below was perfectly justified in issuing warrant to procure the presence of the petitioner to enforce payment and there is no illegality in the same. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay the amount if some time is granted. She wanted six months' time. But the lower court itself has granted eight months time which normally a criminal court will not grant while disposing cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
6. However, considering the amount involved and also considering the fact that petitioner is a lady, this Court feels that three months time can be granted to the petitioner from today to pay the compensation amount and till then the execution of the warrant can be kept in abeyance. So the petition is disposed of as follows:
Crl. M.C. No. 1776 of 2014 4
The petitioner is granted three months' time from today to pay the amount of compensation awarded in C.C.No.1562/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Thrissur. Till then the learned Magistrate is directed to keep the execution of warrant in abeyance.
If the petitioner did not pay the amount within the time granted by this Court, then the lower court is at liberty to revive the warrant and execute the same against the petitioner in accordance with law.
8. With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
rka /true copy/