Kerala High Court
C.J.Santhamma vs Nil
Author: S.S.Satheesachandran
Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/25TH KARTHIKA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 3552 of 2012
--------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN .NO./ IN CRRP.2451/2008 DATED
CC.491/2003 of JMFC-V, TVM (SPL.COURT-MARKLIST CASES)
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
C.J.SANTHAMMA,
KALABHAM, DARSAN NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O
TRIVANDRUM 695005
BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE
COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031
2. K.C. CHANDRA SHEKHARA PILLAI,
SALEM NCC ROAD, AMBALAMUKKU, PEROORKADA P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 695005
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 3552 of 2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A : A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-07-08 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN CRL RP NO 2451/08
ANNEXURE B : A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-02-2009 OF THE
APEX COURT IN CRL M.P NO 2302
ANNEXURE C : A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06-08-2012 IN SLP
(CRL) NO 1390/09 OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANNEXURE D : PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO DATED 08-10-2012 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT BELOW
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE.
stu
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C No.3552 OF 2012
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2012
ORDER
Petitioner is a convict in a cheque case punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. His conviction was affirmed in appeal and revision. This court in revision affirmed the conviction modifying the sentence directing her to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- with further direction that if fine is realised it shall be paid as compensation to the complainant. She was also permitted to either deposit the fine amount before the magistrate or directly pay the compensation to the complainant within a period of eight months. She preferred a Special Leave Petition against that order passed in revision, but, it was turned down. She now seeks the assistance of the court for directing the magistrate to issue notice to the complainant to enable her to make payment. I do not find any merit in the petition, and it is dismissed.
vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE