Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 772 - KERALA HIGH COURTRecovery of Compensation fines - Sec.357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. - Issuance of non-bailable warrant - grievance of the petitioner is that the trial court had subsequently taken up steps for execution of the impugned sentence and had issued, not only distress warrant for recovery of the compensation amount but had also issued nonbailable warrant against the petitioner, even though the petitioner had suffered more than the required substantive sentence and default sentence, in terms of Ext.P-2 revisional order passed by this Court. Held that: - In case like the one involved in the instant case, where the accused has already suffered the default sentence for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he has not paid the compensation amount payable in terms of Sec.357(3)of the Cr.P.C., then the same is recoverable as if it were a fine in terms of the deeming provision contained in Sec.431(1) of the Cr.P.C., by taking recourse to the procedure for recovery of fine contained in Sec. 421 (1). The matter in issue involved in this case is fully covered against the petitioner by virtue of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the decision in Kumaran v. State of Kerala, [2017 (5) TMI 372 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that in case the accused is convicted for offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence of imprisonment with compensation is imposed and there is a default sentence clause for non-payment of compensation and even if the accused has undergone the default sentence, the compensation could still be recoverable in the manner provided in Sec.421(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and that this would be without necessity for recording of any special reasons, as provided in Sec.386(1) of the old Code. Sec.421 deals with warrant for levy of fine. Time limitation - Held that: - In the instant case Ext.P-2 revisional order was passed on 26.10.2007. A perusal of Ext.P-7 proceedings sheet would disclose that distress warrant was issued by the trial court as early as on 13.2.2009. Therefore, the issuance of the distress warrant by the trial court for recovery of the due compensation amount payable by the accused, is legally correct and proper and the trial court has necessary jurisdiction in that regard going by the abovesaid legal position and the action for issuance of distress warrant has been taken within the permissible time limit envisaged in Sec.70 of the I.P.C. Petition disposed off.
|