KOHINOOR SALEEM Vs. JASINTHA THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the respondent in the revision for correcting the error crept in the order by way of an inadvertent omission under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner herein has filed a private complaint under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was taken on file as S.T. No. 1135/2007, which was tried before the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, (Marad Cases), Kozhikode and after trial the revision petitioner was found guilty and she was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of court and also to pay Rs. 24,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under S. 357(3) of the Code and it was confirmed by the appellate court in Crl. A. No. 1017/2008 of Additional District and Sessions Court, Adhoc-II, Kozhikode and that was challenged by the revision petitioner by filing the above revision and this Court had confirmed the order of conviction and sentence granting 8 months time to the revision petitioner to pay the amount Till then directed the execution to be kept in abeyance. It is further ordered that if the revision petitioner did not pay the compensation amount within the said time, the Magistrate shall enforce the default sentence by issuing appropriate distress warrant and she has been directed to appear before court below on 27.5.2013 to receive the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of court.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed several applications for extension of time and ultimately she did not pay the amount. So the petitioner herein moved the court below for enforcing the default sentence by filing Crl. M.P. No. 2254/2014 and the learned Magistrate dismissed the application stating that the High Court when disposing the criminal revision only directed to enforce the default sentence by distress warrant alone, unless it is clarified, no warrant can be issued to arrest the accused. It is thereafter that the petitioner filed this application for correcting the mistake.

(3.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the 1st respondent in the application, who is the revision petitioner in the revision.