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.

1. This appeal, by special leave, arises from order dated 10th

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

2

under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

vide  his  order  dated 30th  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,

which came to be dismissed on 5th  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

whilst dismissing the criminal revision petition on 10th

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

15th 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

appellant has now produced a receipt dated 5th  February,

2018 of having deposited sum of Rs.1 lac (Rupees one lac) in

the Trial Court in terms of our order dated 15th January, 2018.

4

Office Report dated 8th  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

directed by this Court on 15th 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

the direction given by this Court vide order dated 15th

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,

dated 30th 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.