K P GEORGE Vs. LAL JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Freedom and liberty of the individual are the priceless possessionsof any citizen under our Constitution. Thepolity values that right and the constitution zealously recognises and protect that right. Courts are invested with the duty and the responsibility to protect and enforce such rights. The polity looks up to the courts to protect such rights of the individual. Protection of such rights is certainly not the concern of the individual alone, it is the duty of the system to protect such rights of the individual.

(2.) Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution oblige the superior courts to protect and enforce such rights of freedom and liberty.But certainlythesubordinatecourtsmust also bezealouslycautiousand must enthusiastically act for the protection of such rights. The sad tale of events in this case does really create apprehensions in the mind of the Court about the commitment of the learned Magistrate to such lofty ideals and constitutional compulsions the facts and circumstances. Issue of a non bailable warrant for execution of a sentence which the accused has already served, causes shudders in my mind about the role played by the judicial officer in the protection of such rights.

(3.) The accused has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act.He had come before this Court in revision. The verdict of guilty and conviction were upheld. Another Bench of this Court directed that if an amount of Rs.50,000/- were paid within three months, the sentence awarded by the court below shall stand modified. In default of payment of the said amount as directed, the benefit of the order passed in revision will not be available to the revision petitioner, it was held. The petitioner could not pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- within threemonths as directed by this Court in revision. He hence became liable to undergo the sentence which was imposed on him prior to the revision petition.