Supreme Court - Daily Orders
K.K.Sunil Kumar & Etc. vs P.K.Chandrasekharan Nair & Anr. Etc. on 30 June, 2014
; CRL.A. NOS. OF 2014 @ SLP(CRL.) NOS. 212-214/ 2014
ITEM NO.60 COURT NO.12 SE
CTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 212-214/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29/11/2013
in CRLRP 2060/2004,29/11/2013 in CRLRP 2125/2004,29/11/2013 in
CRLRP 2341/2004 passed by the High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam)
K.K.SUNIL KUMAR Petitio
ner(s)
VERSUS
P.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR & ANR. Respondents(s)
(With application for extension of time for depositing the money
and stay and office report)
Date : 30/06/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. SIKRI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Adv.
Mr. Anu K. Joy, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Harikumar V., Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the r espective parties.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Signature Not Verified
(KALYANI GUPTA) (SHARDA KAPOOR) Digitally signed by Kalyani Gupta Date: 2014.07.31 COURT MASTER COURT M ASTER 14:42:43 IST Reason:
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE.] CRL.A. NOS. OF 2014 @ SLP(CRL.) NOS. 212-214/ 2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1269-1271 OF 2014 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NOS. 212-214 OF 2014] K.K. SUNIL KUMAR ..... APPELL ANTS VERSUS P.K. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR & ANR. ..... RESPON DENTS O R D E R Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. While entertaining these Special Leave Petitio ns by this Court’s order dated 24th January, 2014, the appellant was directed to deposit the cheque amounts before the trial court in three cases in which the High Court while modifying the sentence imposed on the appellants from one year to one day simple imprisonment directed the appellants to deposit sum of Rs.5,87,500/- (Rupees Five Lakhs eighty seven thousand five hundred only) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 2060 of 2004; Rs. 1,83,300/- (Rupees One lakhs eighty three thousand three hundred only) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 2125 of 2004; and Rs.1,12,800/- (Rupees One lakh twelve thousand eight hundred only) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 2341 of PAGE NO. 1OF 3 CRL.A. NOS. OF 2014 @ SLP(CRL.) NOS. 212-214/ 2014 2004. The grievance of the appellant was that even while imposing the sentence the compensation amoun t exceeded twice the cheque amount under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read along with Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Though the app ellant was directed to deposit the aforesaid amounts, it is reported that the appellant has till date not paid the said amount.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents, we find that the only submission made by the appellant before the High Court is related to the question of sentence and the High Court considering the submission made chose to alter the sentence from one year simple imprisonment to one day while directing payment of compensation in the aforesaid three cases.
We
do not find any scope to interfere with th
e impugned
judgment except to the extent the compensati
on was
directed to be paid which exceeded twice
the cheque
amount. Therefore, even while affirming th
e judgment
impugned in these appeals, we only direct
that the
appellant will be liable and is directed t
o pay the
compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) in CRL.R.P. No.2060 of 2004; Rs. 1,56,000/- (Rupees One lakhs fifty six thousand only) in CRL.R.P. No. 2125 of 2004; and Rs. 96,000/- (Rupees Ninety six thousan d PAGE NO. 2OF 3 CRL.A. NOS. OF 2014 @ SLP(CRL.) NOS. 212-214/ 2014 only) in CRL.R.P. No. 2341 of 2004. The appellant is directed to appear before the trial court on 30 th July, 2014. In the event of the appellant’s failure to comply with the above directions, the sentence imposed by the trial court will automatically get revived and the sentence shall be implemented as directed by the trial court.
5. With the above modification, as to the compensation to be deposited, these appeals stand disposed of.
6. It is needless to state that the payment would have to be made by the appellant pursuant to this order can be given credit to while executing the decree passed by the Civil Court.
..................................J [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] ..................................J [A.K. SIKRI] NEW DELHI JUNE 30, 2014.
PAGE NO. 3OF 3