Partly allowed

Manoj.K.Menon v. Sreeja

Kerala HC19 Feb 2014Crl.MC/648/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous appeal, the High Court of Kerala held that a condition requiring a deposit of Rs. 80,000 as part of a suspended sentence order was harsh and set it aside. The court directed the appellant to execute a bond alone.

What did the court decide?

The condition to deposit Rs. 80,000 was set aside. The petitioner is directed to execute the bond with sureties as originally ordered.

Manoj.K.Menon Vs Sreeja — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/30TH MAGHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 648 of 2014 ()

¶6

ST.NO. 3536/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- I, OTTAPPALAM CRL.M.P.NO.3684/2013 IN CRL.A.NO.415/2013 OF SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

MANOJ.K. MENON, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHA MENON, KEEZHILLATH MADOM, MANISSERI,OTTAPPALAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/2ND RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶11

1. SREEJA, AGED 34 YEARS,W/O.JAYAPRAKASH, NJEZHUKATHODI HOUSE, MANISSERI POST, OTTAPALAM.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

¶15

ON 19-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

CRMC.NO.648/2014

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEX 1 COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.3684/2013 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.415/2013 DATED 18/12/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, PALAKKAD, (ST.NO.3536/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE , OTTAPALAM

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

Crl. M.C. No.648 of 2014

¶27

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2014

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner, who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.415/2013, seeking modification of the condition imposed, as per order in Crl.M.P.No.3684/2013 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Palakkad, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the ‘Code’).

¶30

It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner was the accused in S.T. 3536/2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottappalam, which was taken on the 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'). The learned Magistrate, after trial found the petitioner guilty and convicted him for the offences under

¶31

¶32

Crl. M.C. No.648 of 2014

¶33

Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a compensation of 3,00,000/-, in default to undergo simple₹ imprisonment for three months more under Section 357(3) of the ‘Code’. Aggrieved by the same, he filed appeal before the Sessions Court, Palakkad, as Criminal Appeal No.415/2013 and also moved Crl.M.P.No.3684/2013, seeking suspension of the sentence passed by the court below, till the disposal of the case. The learned Sessions Judge as per Annexure-A1 order suspended the sentence on condition that, he will have to execute a bond for 25,000/-₹ with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottappalam, and also to make a deposit of 80,000/- in the₹ lower court, within one month. The second limb of the condition is being challenged by filing this application by the petitioner.

¶34

¶35

Crl. M.C. No.648 of 2014

¶36

The 2^nd respondent appeared through

¶37

counsel.

¶38

Heard both sides.

¶39

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶40

the 2^nd condition imposed by the court below is harsh and on account of that condition, he may not be able to enjoy the benefit of suspension order granted by the court.

¶41

On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that out of the amount of ₹ 3,00,000/-, the learned Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to deposit only 80,000/-, which cannot be said to₹ be harsh. Further the case is of the year 2008 and no amount has been paid by the accused so far.

¶42

It is settled law that, while suspending the sentence or granting bail, the court is entitled to impose conditions. But at the same time, imposing a condition which is impossible to comply, will really amount to denial

¶43

¶44

Crl. M.C. No.648 of 2014

¶45

of enjoyment of that order by the accused. In this case, the question whether he is liable to pay of 3,00,000/- itself is₹ in dispute and the order passed by the court below on this aspect is being challenged in this appeal. So under the circumstances, the condition imposed by the court below, to deposit ₹ 80,000/- within one month, as condition for suspending the sentence, appears to be harsh and the same is liable to be set aside. So, the condition imposed by the court below, directing to deposit 80,000/- for suspending₹ the sentence, as per Anenxue-A1 order is set aside. If the petitioner executes the bond alone as mentioned in Annexure-A1, that will be treated as sufficient compliance of the order passed by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner is directed to execute the bond before the court below for ₹25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottappalam, as directed by the Sessions Judge in Annexure-

¶46

¶47

Crl. M.C. No.648 of 2014

¶48

A1 order. Considering the fact that, the complaint was field in the year 2008, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the appeal itself, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before the courts are closing for summer vacation. Parties are directed to appear before the Sessions Court on 05.03.2014. Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Sessions judge at the earliest.

¶49

Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge

¶50

// True Copy // P.A. to Judge

¶51

Manoj.K.Menon v. Sreeja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj.K.Menon v. Sreeja

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

Lekshmi Kutty Vs the State of Kerala

Roy Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Nazar V.M. Vs Amal Babu

Ubaid Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Bijubal Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.Vasanthi Devi Vs State of Kerala