Dismissed

Sugunan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Feb 2018Crl.MC/557/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminalMiscellaneous case under Section 421 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Kerala dismissed the petitioner's petition challenging the issuance of a distress warrant for compensation payment, holding it justified as the petitioner did not surrender to serve the total default term ordered by the High Court earlier.

What did the court decide?

Imposition of distress warrant for compensation upheld; petition dismissed.

Sugunan Vs State of Kerala — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 557 of 2016

¶6

C.M.P 3402 (A)/15 IN CC 572/2007 of J.M.F.C., PARAVOOR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)

¶8

SUGUNAN, aged 72 YEARS, S/O.SANKU, VIJAYA NIVAS, KURUMANDAL B WARD, PARAVUR, PIN 691 301.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.R.VIJAYAKUMARAN PILLAI SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU SRI.R.SANTHOSH (VARKALA) SMT.S.V.HARITHA SRI.S.KRISHNAKUMAR (VARKALA)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶13

KOLLAM, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM 691 013.

¶14

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.KOLLAM), CIVIL STATION , KOLLAM 691 013.

¶15

ADDL.R4 THULASSEDHARAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, T.S.BHAVAN, KURUMANDAL, PARAVUR, KOLLAM 691301.

¶16

(ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5.2.2016 IN CRL.M.A 950/2016 IN CRL.M.C.557/2016)

¶17

R4 BY ADV. SRI.HARISH GOPINATH R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 557 of 2016 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

ANNEXURE 1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.11.2014 OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF KERALA IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1033/2014

¶23

ANNEXURE 2- THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 21.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE JFMC, PARAVOOR

¶24

ANNEXURE 3- THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.2015/59165/2 IN TALUK FILED NO.D4 6135/15 DATED 2.12.2015

¶25

ANNEXURE 4- THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.D4 6135/15 DATED 21.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶26

ANNEXURE 5- THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2015 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR IN CMP NO.3204/2015

¶27

ANNEXURE 6- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2015 IN CMP NO.3402/2015 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR

¶28

ANNEXURE 7- DISCHARGE CARD ISSUED FROM TEH DISTRICT HOSPITAL , KOLLAM TO THE PETITIONER

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

PA TO JUDGE

Scl.

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶34

------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 557 of 2016

¶35

Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2018

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.572 of 2007 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Paravoor. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( for short “the N.I.Act”), against which the petitioner filed appeal. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence, against which the petitioner filed revision petition before this Court. As per Annexure-1 order in Crl.R.P.No.1033 of 2014, this Court confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.3,20,000/- with a default clause for simple imprisonment for two months, with a further direction that in the event of realisation of the fine amount, the entire amount to be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner was granted

¶38

Crl.M.C.No. 557 of 2016

¶39

-2-

¶40

time till 5.5.2015 to pay the amount.

¶41

While so, the trial court as per Annexure A5 order in C.M.P.No.3402 of 2015 issued distress warrant for realisation of the compensation under Section 421 Cr.P.C. The case was posted to 28.11.2015 for return of warrant. Thereafter, on 28.11.2015, the trial court as per Annexure A6 order posted the case to 6.2.2016 for the report on the distress warrant.

¶42

The petitioner has filed this Crl.M.C. praying for quashing Annexures A5 and A6 orders passed by the trial court in C.M.P.No.3402 of 2015 in C.C.No.572 of 2007.

¶43

Heard.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

¶45

that the petitioner had already undergone the default sentence

¶46

ordered by this Court as per Annexure A1 order and in the said circumstances, the distress warrant issued for realising the amount of compensation from the petitioner is not legal.

¶47

Proviso to Section 421 Cr.P.C. provides that if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has

¶48

Crl.M.C.No. 557 of 2016

¶49

-3-

¶50

undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no court shall issue warrant for levy of fine unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under section 357 Cr.P.C. In this case, this Court ordered payment of compensation to the complainant under Section 357 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. In the said circumstances, the trial court was justified in issuing warrant for levy of fine under Section 421 Cr.P.C. In view of the above reason, I find no reason to interference with Annexures A5 and A6 orders passed by the trial court.

¶51

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. stands dismissed.

¶52

Sd/B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE

¶53

Scl/26.02.18

Sugunan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugunan v. State of Kerala

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

S.R.Abhilash Vs Geetha S. Nair

M/S.Muthoot Leasing and Finance Limited Now Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited Vs Manoj Kumar D

T.Thankachan Vs Sivakumar

Ashraf Vs Salih

V.Radha Vs Rahul S.K. @ Lalu

C.R. Shaji Vs Balakrishnan