P RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. RANI RAMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a convict in C.C.No.221 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur in Thiruvallur District. THE said case was instituted on a private complaint filed by the respondent alleging that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On completing the trial, the learned Magistrate by judgment dated 19.10.2011, convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months and to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the complainant. On the same day, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 389(3) Cr.P.C seeking to suspend the sentence. THE learned Magistrate, accordingly, allowed the petition and suspended the sentence till 18.11.2011, so as to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal to the Court of Sessions.

(2.) THEREAFTER, according to the petitioner, he preferred an appeal to the Court of Sessions on 18.11.2011. But the same was returned on 19.11.2011. THEREAFTER, the petitioner has not represented the appeal. Neither did he challenge the order of return passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Instead, the petitioner filed another petition before the trial Court under Section 389 (3) Cr.P.C seeking to extend the period of suspension by another two weeks. The learned Judicial Magistrate returned the petition stating that the same is not maintainable. Therefore, the petitioner has rushed to this Court with this petition seeking a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate , Tiruvottiyur to extend the period of suspension of sentence by another two weeks and also to recall the non bailable warrant issued for the arrest of the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel did not mention on that day before this Court that the appeal memorandum itself was returned by the learned Principal Sessions Judge. THErefore, this Court called for remarks from the learned Principal Sessions Judge as to how he could return the miscellaneous petition with an observation that it is open for the petitioner to get the suspension period extended by the trial Court.