Dismissed

Muralidharan v. Cnn Kerala Chits (P) Ltd.

Kerala HC10 Jan 2020Crl.MC/177/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the accused sought an extension of six months to pay a fine imposed for a cheque dishonour offence. The High Court dismissed the plea, finding insufficient ground to grant further time given the petitioner's significant delay in approaching the court after the judgment date.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no extension of time granted for payment of the fine.

Muralidharan Vs Cnn Kerala Chits (P) Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.MC.No.177 OF 2020(B)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 20TH POUSHA, 1941

¶7

Crl.MC.No.177 OF 2020(B)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 614/2017 DATED 08-02-2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PALAKKAD

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶10

MURALIDHARAN

¶11

AGED 43 YEARS S/O. KUNJUMANI, 41/33, BHARGAVI NIVAS, AR U.P. SCHOOL, SREERAMA PALAYAM, MOOTHANTHARA, PALAKKAD, PIN

¶12

BY ADVS. SHRI.SARATH M.S. SRI.VYSAKH VIJAYAN SMT.NIVEA LIZ PETER FERNANDEZ

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1 M/S.CNN KERALA CHITS (P) LTD. BRM COMPLES, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD, PIN REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶15

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

¶16

R1 BY SRI C K PRASAD-PP

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No.177 OF 2020(B)

¶19

¶20

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶21

Crl.M.C No. 177 of 2020

¶22

Dated this the 10^th day of January, 2020

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner is the accused in the case S.T No. 614/2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad.

¶25

The case is one instituted upon the complaint filed by the

¶26

second respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶27

The petitioner appeared before the court below on receiving summons. When the particulars of the offence were read over to him and explained to him by the court below, he pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, it was submitted before the court below that the matter was settled between the parties and that they had entered into a compromise. When the case was taken up on 08.02.2018, the petitioner filed an application for reading the particulars of the offence to him again and the aforesaid application was allowed by the court below. The particulars of the offence were again read over to him and explained to him and then he pleaded guilty to the offence. Since the lower court was satisfied that the plea was made by the petitioner

¶28

Crl.MC.No.177 OF 2020(B)

¶29

¶30

voluntarily after knowing the consequences, the plea was accepted and the petitioner was found guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act and convicted thereunder.

¶31

While imposing the sentence on the petitioner, the trial court took note of a joint statement filed by the parties, wherein the petitioner had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.72,975/- to the complainant on or before the date 31.07.2018. Thereupon, the court below sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.72,975/- and granted him time till 31.07.2018 to pay the amount of fine. It was also directed that if the fine amount was paid, it shall be given to the complainant as compensation. The trial court further directed that in default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

¶32

The petitioner has now approached this Court for granting him a further period of six months to pay the fine amount in the trial court.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶34

It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is a business man and due to the sudden increase of the price of the oil, he has faced crisis in the business. It is also stated that his father is a cancer patient. On these grounds the petitioner prays for granting a further

¶35

Crl.MC.No.177 OF 2020(B)

¶36

¶37

period of six months to pay the amount of fine.

¶38

The judgment of the trial court was pronounced on 08.02.2018 grating time till 31.07.2018 to the petitioner to pay the amount of fine of Rs.72,975/-. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pay the amount of fine. This petition before this Court was filed on 09.01.2020. Nothing is stated in this petition with regard to the reason for not approaching the trial court or this Court at the appropriate time seeking extension of time for deposit of the fine amount in the trial court. The amount of fine is only Rs.72,975/-. The petitioner had got a period of one year and eleven months since the date of judgment of the trial court to deposit the fine amount but he has not paid the amount. In these circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to grant further time to the petitioner to pay the amount of fine. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/-R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

lsn

¶43

Crl.MC.No.177 OF 2020(B)

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8/2/2018 IN S.T.CASE NO.614/2017 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, PALAKKAD.

¶48

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶49

TRUE COPY

¶50

P.A TO JUDGE

¶51

LSN

Muralidharan v. Cnn Kerala Chits (P) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muralidharan v. Cnn Kerala Chits (P) Ltd.

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

Vinod.T Vs State of Kerala

Sujith @ Anu Vs State of Kerala

Vijaya Agencies Vs the State of Kerala

Ambili.R Vs Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company (P) Ltd.

Manojan Vs State of Kerala

A.Ashraf, Vs State of Kerala