Full Judgment Text
1
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.57 of 2013)
P. RAMADAS …..APPELLANT(S)
:Versus:
STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER …..RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
th
1. This appeal, by special leave, arises from order dated 10
February, 2012 passed by the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in Criminal Revision Petition No.3075/2011.
2. The appellant was convicted by the Judicial First Class
MagistrateII, Ottappalam, for offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and
to pay a compensation of Rs.2,45,000/ to the complainant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHETAN KUMAR
Date: 2018.02.19
17:24:53 IST
Reason:
2
under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
th
vide his order dated 30 March, 2010 passed in Summary
Trial No.69/2008. In default of payment of compensation, the
appellant was directed to undergo further simple
imprisonment of 15 days.
3. Assailing the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the Judicial First Class MagistrateII,
Ottappalam, the appellant filed an appeal before the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad Division at Ottapalam,
th
which came to be dismissed on 5 August, 2011. Feeling
aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court of Kerala
at Ernakulam by way of criminal revision petition, being
Criminal Revision Petition No.3075/2011. The High Court
confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the
Trial Court and as confirmed by the lower Appellate Court
th
whilst dismissing the criminal revision petition on 10
February, 2012. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the
High Court, the appellant has approached this Court by way of
special leave petition.
3
4. This Court issued notice to the respondents. Respondent
No.1 is represented by Advocate Mr. G. Prakash, (AOR). No
appearance has been entered on behalf of respondent No.2
(complainant). When the matter was taken up for hearing on
th
15 January, 2018, the Court was informed that the appellant
has already deposited the compensation amount of
Rs.2,45,000/ (Rupees two lac forty five thousand). However,
considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant,
the Court passed the following order:
“Let the matter be listed on 12.2.2018 to enable
the petitioner to deposit a further sum of
Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees one lac only) before the
trial Court. After the deposit is made, the trial
Court shall issue notice to the complainant for
withdrawal of the amount.
If the proof of withdrawal is filed before this Court,
this Court may consider for waiver of the sentence
relating to imprisonment.”
5. Hearing of the case was accordingly deferred. The
th
appellant has now produced a receipt dated 5 February,
2018 of having deposited sum of Rs.1 lac (Rupees one lac) in
th
the Trial Court in terms of our order dated 15 January, 2018.
4
th
Office Report dated 8 February, 2018 indicates that
respondent No.2 has been duly served. However, no
appearance has been entered on behalf of respondent No.2 till
date.
6. After considering the submissions and going through the
record of the case, we are of the opinion that it is not possible
to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact regarding the
finding of guilt recorded against the appellant. Thus, no
interference is warranted against the order of conviction. The
only question that must receive our attention is about the
sentence awarded to the appellant.
7. Having regard to the fact that the appellant has already
deposited the compensation amount of Rs.2,45,000/ and also
deposited further amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees one lac) as
th
directed by this Court on 15 January, 2018, what remains to
be complied with by the appellant in terms of the decision of
the Trial Court, is to undergo simple imprisonment of 3
months.
5
8. Considering the fact that the appellant has complied with
th
the direction given by this Court vide order dated 15
January, 2018 and taking overall view of the matter, we are of
the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if the
order regarding simple imprisonment of three months is
modified and in lieu thereof, additional compensation amount
of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac only), already deposited by
the appellant before the Trial Court, is directed to be made
over to respondent No.2. In other words, respondent No.2 is
free to withdraw the additional compensation amount of
Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac only) already deposited by the
appellant before the Trial Court. This amount be paid to
respondent No.2 subject to verification of his identity.
9. We are conscious of the fact that respondent No.2
(complainant) has not appeared before this Court, but the
order which we propose to pass is to his advantage and, in all
probability, the same would be acceptable to him. We make it
clear that if respondent No.2 – original complainant is not
6
satisfied with this order, he will be free to apply for recall of
the same, which request can be considered appropriately.
10. Accordingly, we partly allow this appeal in the
aforementioned terms. Resultantly, the order of sentence
passed by the Judicial First Class MagistrateII, Ottappalam,
th
dated 30 March, 2010, stands modified to the extent that the
appellant shall pay an additional compensation amount of
Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac only) to respondent No.2
original complainant (which is already deposited before the
Trial Court), in lieu of simple imprisonment for three months’
period. Ordered accordingly.
.………………………….CJI.
(Dipak Misra)
…………………………..….J.
(A.M. Khanwilkar)
…………………………..….J.
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)
New Delhi;
February 19, 2018.