9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er challenged the judgments of conviction and sentence before the District and Sessions Court, Alappuzha in Crl.A. Nos.20/2024, 21/2024 and 22/2024. Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed applications under Section 389 Cr.P.C seeking suspension of sentence. The Sessions Court, in the applications under Section 389 Cr.P.C. suspended the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/-(rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court and to deposit an amount not less than 20% of the fine amount. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contented that the Sessions Court has not assigned any reason for directin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded. 8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the Courts to consider the said plea. 9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court. (c) If the Appellate Court chooses to direct the appellant to deposit any sum which is more than 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court, then it would be obliged to give further reasons for directing the deposit of such amounts as are in excess of the minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court." 6. In the impugned order, the Sessions Judge did not assign sufficient reason while ordering a deposit of 20% of the amount of compensation imposed by the Trial Court. The Sessions Court has also not considered whether the case of the petitioner fell in the exception or not. Therefore, the orders impugned to the extent it directed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
