Kerala High Court
Sheeja Jiji vs State Of Kerala on 5 March, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1941
OP(Crl.).No.92 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 20/2016 DATED 29-11-2018 OF
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHEEJA JIJI
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O. JIJIMON, POOJA DESIGNERS, 1ST FLOOR, SHALIMAR
CHAMBERS, CONVENT ROAD, ERNAKULAM-11.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR
SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS
SMT.P.F.ROSY
SMT.SNEHA RAJIV
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
2 JOSHY JACOB,
AGED 53, S/O. CHACKO, PAREKATTIL HOUSE,
CHERUVANDOOR, ETTUMANOOR P O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-
686631
R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR
R2 BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN
R2 BY ADV. SMT.NOVA SEN ABRAHAM
SRI AJITH MURALI PP
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
O.P (Crl.)No.92 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the accused in the case S.T No.30/2016 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam.
2. The aforesaid case was instituted upon the complaint filed against the petitioner by the second respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
3. As per Ext.P1 judgment dated 29.11.2018, the trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and convicted her thereunder and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The trial court also directed that, if the fine amount was realised, it shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
4. The aforesaid judgment was rendered by the trial court based on a mutually satisfactory disposition arrived at between the complainant and the accused. The trial court also ordered that the mutually satisfactory disposition shall form part of the judgment.
5. The accused has filed this original petition under Article 3 O.P (Crl.)No.92 of 2020 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality of Ext.P1 judgment.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the second respondent/complainant.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not examined in camera by the trial court as provided under Section 265B(4) Cr.PC and the judgment rendered by the trial court, without adopting such procedure, is not sustainable in law.
8. Learned counsel for the second respondent, on instructions from his client, submits that the trial court had not examined the petitioner/accused in camera before accepting the mutually satisfactory disposition.
9. Examination of the accused in camera under Section 265B(4) Cr.P.C is not an empty formality. It is a mandatory procedure. It is a process conducted to ascertain whether the plea made by the accused is voluntary and to ensure that there was no pressure or force or compulsion from any person on the accused to make a plea of guilt. (See Sudhamol V. Mariamma Varghese :
2020 (1) KHC 743).
10. Conviction entered against the accused and the sentence imposed on her, without scrupulously following the 4 O.P (Crl.)No.92 of 2020 procedure for plea bargaining, cannot be sustained. Ext.P1 judgment is liable to be set aside.
11. Consequently, the original petition is allowed. Ext.P1 judgment is set aside. The case S.T No. 30/2016 is restored to the file of the trial court. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law and dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of three months form the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by any of the parties before that court. The complainant and the accused shall appear before the trial court on 30.03.2020.
Sd/-
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE rpk 5 O.P (Crl.)No.92 of 2020 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2018 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM IN ST 30/2016 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICER 01.11.2018 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM IN ST NO.30 OF 2016.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MUTUAL SATISFACTION DISPOSITION DATED 01.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM IN ST NO.30 OF 2016.