Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court of India

P.Ramadas vs The State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 164, 2018 (3) SCC 287, (2018) 2 BOMCR(CRI) 433, (2018) 5 MH LJ (CRI) 479, (2018) 70 OCR 171, (2018) 1 NIJ 292, (2018) 6 MAH LJ 945, (2018) 2 RECCRIR 529, (2018) 1 CRILR(RAJ) 244, (2018) 3 SCALE 62, 2018 (2) SCC (CRI) 47, (2018) 1 UC 456, 2018 CALCRILR 2 1, 2018 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 244, (2018) 3 BOM CR 246, (2018) 103 ALLCRIC 617, (2018) 2 ALLCRILR 475, (2018) 185 ALLINDCAS 228 (SC), (2018) 1 ALD(CRL) 577, (2018) 1 CRIMES 143, (2018) 1 CURCRIR 261, AIRONLINE 2018 SC 592

Author: A.M. Khanwilkar

Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, A.M. Khanwilkar, Dipak Misra

                                                         1

                                                                              NON­REPORTABLE



                                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 271 OF  2018
                                      (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.57 of 2013)

                         P. RAMADAS                                      …..APPELLANT(S)
                                                        :Versus:
                         STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER                     …..RESPONDENT(S)
                            


                                                 J U D G M E N T

                         A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. This appeal, by special leave, arises from order dated 10 th February,   2012   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Kerala   at Ernakulam in Criminal Revision Petition No.3075/2011.  

2. The appellant was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate­II,   Ottappalam,   for   offence   punishable   under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to   pay   a   compensation   of   Rs.2,45,000/­   to   the   complainant Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2018.02.19 17:24:53 IST Reason:  2 under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, vide   his   order   dated   30 th  March,   2010   passed   in   Summary Trial No.69/2008. In default of payment of compensation, the appellant   was   directed   to   undergo   further   simple imprisonment of 15 days.

3. Assailing   the   judgment   of   conviction   and   order   of sentence   passed   by   the   Judicial   First   Class   Magistrate­II, Ottappalam, the appellant filed an appeal before the Court of Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Palakkad   Division   at   Ottapalam, which   came   to   be   dismissed   on   5 th  August,   2011.   Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court of Kerala at   Ernakulam   by   way   of   criminal   revision   petition,   being Criminal   Revision   Petition   No.3075/2011.   The   High   Court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial   Court   and   as   confirmed   by   the   lower   Appellate   Court whilst   dismissing   the   criminal   revision   petition   on   10 th February,   2012.   Aggrieved   by   the   said   order   passed   by   the High Court, the appellant has approached this Court by way of special leave petition. 

4. This Court issued notice to the respondents. Respondent No.1   is   represented   by   Advocate   Mr.   G.   Prakash,   (AOR).   No appearance   has   been   entered   on   behalf   of   respondent   No.2 (complainant). When the matter was taken up for hearing on 15th January, 2018, the Court was informed that the appellant has   already   deposited   the   compensation   amount   of Rs.2,45,000/­ (Rupees two lac forty five thousand).  However, considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, the Court passed the following order:

“Let  the  matter be  listed  on 12.2.2018 to enable the   petitioner   to   deposit   a   further   sum   of Rs.1,00,000/­   (Rupees   one   lac   only)   before   the trial   Court.   After   the   deposit   is   made,   the   trial Court   shall   issue   notice   to   the   complainant   for withdrawal of the amount.

If the proof of withdrawal is filed before this Court, this Court may consider for waiver of the sentence relating to imprisonment.”

5. Hearing   of   the   case   was   accordingly   deferred.   The appellant   has   now   produced   a   receipt   dated   5 th  February, 2018 of having deposited sum of Rs.1 lac (Rupees one lac) in the Trial Court in terms of our order dated 15 th January, 2018.  4 Office   Report   dated   8th  February,   2018   indicates   that respondent   No.2   has   been   duly   served.   However,   no appearance has been entered on behalf of respondent No.2 till date.   

6. After considering the submissions and going through the record of the case, we are of the opinion that it is not possible to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact regarding the finding   of   guilt   recorded   against   the   appellant.   Thus,   no interference is warranted against the order of conviction. The only   question   that   must   receive   our   attention   is   about   the sentence awarded to the appellant.

7. Having regard to the fact that the appellant has already deposited the compensation amount of Rs.2,45,000/­ and also deposited further amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ (Rupees one lac) as directed by this Court on 15 th January, 2018, what remains to be complied with by the appellant in terms of the decision of the   Trial   Court,   is   to   undergo   simple   imprisonment   of   3 months. 

8. Considering the fact that the appellant has complied with the   direction   given   by   this   Court   vide   order   dated   15 th January, 2018 and taking overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if the order   regarding   simple   imprisonment   of   three   months   is modified and in lieu thereof, additional compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ (Rupees One Lac only), already deposited by the   appellant   before   the   Trial   Court,   is   directed   to   be   made over to respondent No.2. In other words, respondent No.2 is free   to   withdraw   the   additional   compensation   amount   of Rs.1,00,000/­ (Rupees One Lac only) already deposited by the appellant   before   the   Trial   Court.   This   amount   be   paid   to respondent No.2 subject to verification of his identity.

9. We   are   conscious   of   the   fact   that   respondent   No.2 (complainant)   has   not   appeared   before   this   Court,   but   the order which we propose to pass is to his advantage and, in all probability, the same would be acceptable to him.  We make it clear   that   if   respondent   No.2   –   original   complainant   is   not  6 satisfied with this order, he will be free to apply for recall of the same, which request can be considered appropriately.  

10. Accordingly,   we   partly   allow   this   appeal   in   the aforementioned   terms.   Resultantly,   the   order   of   sentence passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate­II, Ottappalam, dated 30th March, 2010, stands modified to the extent that the appellant   shall   pay   an   additional   compensation   amount   of Rs.1,00,000/­   (Rupees   One   Lac   only)   to   respondent   No.2   ­ original   complainant   (which   is   already   deposited   before   the Trial Court), in lieu of simple imprisonment for three months’ period.  Ordered accordingly. 

.………………………….CJI.

(Dipak Misra) …………………………..….J.                  (A.M. Khanwilkar)    …………………………..….J.                 (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud) New Delhi;

February 19, 2018.