H. ABBAS, S/O.HUSSAIN Vs. N. NAGARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the petitioner, who is the accused in S.T No. 2407/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -III, Palakkad to issue direction to the learned Magistrate to receive the balance fine and record satisfaction of the compensation paid to the complainant directly under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused in S.T No.2407/05 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -III, Palakkad which was taken on file on the basis of private complaint filed by the first respondent alleging offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. After trial, the petitioner was found guilty and convicted thereunder and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.46,000/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It is further ordered that fine amount is realised and the same be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code. The petitioner filed Crl.A.No. 22/2009 and that was dismissed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad. Aggrieved by the same he preferred Crl.R.P.2735/10 before this Court and this Court by Annexure -A order disposed of the revision enhancing the fine to Rs.50,000/ - and granting time till 20.12.2010 and to pay Rs.48,000/ - to the complainant as compensation out of the fine amount and remit the balance amount before the court below within that time in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. He could not pay the amount within time. But now he had paid compensation to the complainant directly and he is prepared to deposit the balance fine of Rs.2,000/ - before the court below. Since, the time granted by this Court has expired, the court below will not accept the amount. So, the petitioner has no other remedy to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submitted that though he could not pay the amount within the stipulated time, he had now paid the amount to the first respondent and he is prepared to acknowledge the same before the court below. But unless a direction is given to the court below, the court below will not accept the same. He had relied on the decision reported in Beena v. Balakrishnan Nair and another, 2010(2) KLT 1017 in support of his case.