K A THOMAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The prosecution was initiated long earlier. The verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence have at last become final with the order dt. 19.6.06 passed by this Court in revision. The petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,55,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months. An amount of Rs.3,45,000/- was directed to be released to the complainant under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The petitioner was specifically directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 11.9.2006 to receive the default sentence, if the fine amount is not paid by then.

(2.) The petitioner has not so far appeared before the learned Magistrate. He has not so far paid any part of the amount as fine. The petitioner, in turn, made frantic efforts to protract the proceedings by making an application for commutation/pardon of the sentence imposed. The said application was not considered favourably by the Govt. of India and the petitioner was directed to approach the High Court to seek appropriate reliefs. That petition was forwarded to the High Court for consideration and disposal. This Court informed the petitioner that no orders on the administrative side could be passed. The petitioner, in these circumstances, has come to this Court with this writ petition on 19.3.2007 to complain about the inaction on the part of the Government.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is abdication of jurisdiction on the part of the Union of India in not considering the application for commutation/pardon in an appropriate manner. I shall for the purpose of arguments accept that the petition has not been properly disposed of. But I must say that in the facts and circumstances of this case I am not at all persuaded to agree that this is a fit case, even assuming that there is no proper disposal of the application, for this court to invoke the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. This evidently is a case where the petitioner is attempting in an unworthy manner to prolong and protract the proceedings and to avoid the liability to pay the amount to the complainant, who has been compelled to fight three rounds of legal battle by now. I am, in these circumstances, not issuing notice to the respondent/complainant.