Disposed

Kamalam v. K.P. Sivarajan

Kerala HC7 Mar 2014Crl.MC/1391/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case, the High Court of Kerala directed the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court to issue a modified committal warrant reflecting a reduced sentence imposed in a prior Criminal Revision Petition, as the original warrant erroneously cited the higher pre-revision sentence.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur, to issue a modified committal warrant based on the High Court's revision order and to communicate a copy of said order to the lower court.

Kamalam Vs K.P. Sivarajan — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/16TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1391 of 2014 ()

¶6

CC.NO. 190/1996 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR

¶7

PETITIONER / ACCUSED :

¶8

KAMALAM SHERLY GARMENTS, GOKULAM VEEDU, PARKING MUKKU UMAYANALOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.K.R.RANJITH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE :

¶11

1. K.P. SIVARAJAN LEENALAYM, ERAM, KARAMCODU P.O. CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.-691 572.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. N. SURESH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

...2/-

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 1391 of 2014 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶21

ANNEXURE-A1. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/5/2006 OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-III), KOLLAM IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.87/2001.

¶22

ANNEXURE-A2. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/4/2001 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR IN CC NO.190/1996.

¶23

ANNEXURE-A3. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/4/2009 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, IN CRL.RP. NO.1324/2009.

¶24

ANNEXURE-A4. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/2/2014 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR, IN CC NO.190/1996.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

-----------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.1391 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7^th day of March, 2014

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the Petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No. 190/1996 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur, seeking a direction to be issued to the court below under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the ‘Code’).

¶33

It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.190/1996 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur. The case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'). After trial, the learned magistrate found the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Act, convicted and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a compensation of 1,40,000/-₹

¶34

¶35

Crl. M.C. No.1391 of 2014

¶36

under Section 357(3) of the Code. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing Crl. Appeal No.87/2001 before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Kollam, and the Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and that was challenged by the petitioner before this court by filing the Crl. Revision Petition No.1324/2009 and this court by judgment dated 08.04.2009, allowed the revision in part by confirming the conviction, but modifying the sentence to fine of ₹ 1,55,000/- and default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and directed the petitioner to pay the fine amount, as compensation to the complainant directly within six months from the date of judgment and produce the receipt before the lower court, in case of direct payment, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The judgment was passed by this court on 08.04.2009. But she did not comply with the directions. So, non-bailable warrant was issued from the court and she was arrested and produced before the court on 07.02.2014 and

¶37

¶38

Crl. M.C. No.1391 of 2014

¶39

the learned magistrate sent the accused to jail to serve sentence as per judgment dated 20.04.2001, namely the judgment of that court. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

¶40

“1. To call for the records leading to the AnnexureA4 in CC No.190/1996 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur, as against the petitioners.

¶41

To quash Annexure-A4 order and the magistrate court is to be directed to issue order to the jail authorities to release the petitioner on completion of three months from 07.02.2014.

¶42

To grant such other reliefs this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶43

On the basis of the allegations in the petition,

¶44

a report has been called for from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur, and the learned magistrate sent a report which reads as follows:

¶45

“That the accused in CC No.190/96 was arrested and produced before me on 07/12/2014 at 1.25 P.M. in pursuant of N.B.W issued as part of execution proceedings in this court. As per the available records at this office, the accused punished by this court. The accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and is also pay compensation

¶46

Crl. M.C. No.1391 of 2014

¶47

¶48

of Rs.1,40,000/- (One lakh and Forty Thousand Only) to the complainant U/s. 357(3) Cr.PC on 20.4.2001, and the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble District Sessions Court (Ad hoc III) at Kollam on 31.5.2005. The case records were transferred to this court for execution. Accordingly N.B.W. was issued to the accused. I was not aware that the accused preferred a Criminal Revision Petition before the Hon'ble High Court against the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Sessions Court (Ad hoc III), Kollam. Moreover the concerned clerk who handling the appeal section reported that no Criminal Revision petition was preferred by the accused before the Hon'ble High Court and no communication was received from the Hon'ble High Court. The accused did not submitted anything about the Criminal Revision Petition preferred before the Hon'ble High Court and order if any passed therein. Therefore I prepared committal warrant against the accused. I may kindly be excused. I may be permitted to issue a revised conviction warrant if there is any laches or mistake committed from my part.”

¶49

This court felt that the petition can be disposed of on the basis of the report submitted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravur. It is seen from the report that, that court has received the judgment of the appellant court, namely, Additional District and Sessions Court, dated 31.05.2006 and they were not aware of the filing of the revision and the order of this court has not been communicated to them. But I am not going to those aspects now. Since, her sentence has been modified by this court in

¶50

¶51

Crl. M.C. No.1391 of 2014

¶52

the revision; the magistrate ought to have issued a fresh committal warrant specifying the present sentence imposed by the court as per the revision, which is not done in this case. So considering the circumstances, petition can be disposed as follows:

¶53

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur, is directed to issue a modified committal warrant, on the basis of the orders of this court in Crl. Revision Petition No.1324/2009 dated 08.04.2009 to the jail authorities immediately. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court along with the copy of the judgment in Crl.Revision Petition No.1324/2009 to that court immediately.

¶54

With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

K. Ramakrishnan, Judge

¶57

// True Copy //

¶58

P.A. to Judge

¶59

Kamalam v. K.P. Sivarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamalam v. K.P. Sivarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soby George Vs State of Kerala

V.S.Ullasnathan Vs State of Kerala

Shihabudheen Vs Director General of Police

Padmakumari Vs the State of Kerala

Roopesh A.K Vs Prajith

Shahir R.K. Vs Theshina