O J ABRAHAM Vs. GEORGEKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is accused in C.C.No.164 of 2005 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Punalur. He was convicted for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months on payment of the cheque amount as compensation. In appeal, sentence was modified as imprisonment till rising of the Court. But the direction for payment of compensation was confirmed. PETITIONER filed Crl.R.P.No.2394 of 2010 which this Court dismissed as per Annexure-A1, order dated 13.08.2010 directing petitioner to appear before the trial court on 12.11.2010 to receive the sentence and pay `.40,000/- by way of compensation. PETITIONER claims that he met with an accident on 10.11.2010 and hence could not comply with the order of this Court. In the meantime, petitioner paid the sum of `.40,000/- by way of compensation to the first respondent who issued Annexure-A2, receipt. Later, first respondent filed Annexure-A3, petition in the trial court acknowledging receipt of compensation but, petitioner claims that the said petition was returned to the counsel by the learned Magistrate. Hence this petition seeking time to the petitioner to appear before the trial court. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) ANNEXURE-A1,order passed by this Court only directed petitioner to pay `.40,000/- to the first respondent as compensation under Sec.357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure within three months from the date of the order and petitioner was directed to appear before the trial court on 12.11.2010 which for the reason stated above petitioner could not comply. If first respondent has received the amount, there is no reason why that should not be accepted by the learned Magistrate. It is not necessary that the amount should have deposited in the trial court and then paid to the first respondent. If at all such a course is required, once first respondent acknowledged receipt of the amount necessary entry in the relevant register could be made as directed by this Court in paragraph 4 of the decision in Beena Vs. Balakrishnan Nair (2010(2) KLT 1017). Having regard to the circumstances stated by petitioner I am inclined to grant one months' time to the petitioner to appear before the trial court. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed in the following lines: