AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Venugopal, J.—The Petitioner/Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Case as against the order dated 24.10.2013, in Cr.M.P. No. 5188 of 2013, in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2013, passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in so far as it relates to imposition of condition by directing the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli, on or before 15.11.2013. This Court to avoid an avoidable delay has not issued Notice to the Respondent and disposes of the Criminal Revision Case at the stage of admission itself to prevent an aberration of justice.
The Learned Principal Sessions Judge, while passing the order on 24.10.2013 in Cr.M.P. No. 5188 of 2013, in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2013 has observed and imposed a condition as under:-
Perused the trial Court Judgment dated 30.09.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no fine has been imposed and the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused enjoyed the bail throughout trial and he was regularly appearing before the trial court during the trial. The amount of Rs. 6,20,115/- was not paid. After taking into active consideration and the appeal is a statutory right and the petitioner/Appellant/accused was on bail throughout the trial and there is likelihood of sufficient grounds to win the appeal and in the interest of the justice there are sufficient valid grounds to suspend the sentence alone. Hence the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner/appellant/accused alone is suspended till the disposal of the appeal on condition that the petitioner/Appellant/accused shall deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli, on or before 15.11.2013 and also on executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli.
It comes to be known that the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2013 on the file of the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, as against the Judgment, dated 30.09.2013 in S.T.C. No. 234 of 2011, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli in convicting and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and also to pay a sum of Rs. 6,20,115/- to the Respondent/Defacto Complainant within 3 months for the offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The grievance of the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused in the main Criminal Revision Case before this Court is that the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, while passing order in Cr.M.P. No. 5188 of 2013, in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2013, dated 24.10.2013 has imposed an onerous condition that the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused shall deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli on or before 15.11.2013 etc., and in view of the fact that the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused is employed in a private Grocery Shop, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 6000/- he is unable to comply with the said condition.
The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused urges before this Court that the Learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli has committed an error while passing the order dated 24.10.2013, in Cr.M.P. No. 5188 of 2013, in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2013, directing the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- which is an unwarranted one, considering his financial capacity/status, ability, wherewithal to pay such a big sum.
In effect, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused is that the ingredients of Section 389 of Cr.PC., do not create any room for a Court concerned to require the party to comply with the onerous condition imposed by it.
It is to be borne in mind that the Appellate Court, u/s 389(1) of Cr.PC., can very well exercise the powers conferred thereunder. It can also suspend the sentence imposed by it on taking into account of the facts and circumstance of the given case which float on the surface. A mere running of the eye over the ingredients of Section 389(3) of Cr.PC., clearly enjoins that the Appellate Court is empowered to release an accused on bail after suspending the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Where a person is sentenced to short term imprisonment the normal rule is that pending Appeal, the sentence should be suspended and rejection is only way of exception, as per decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Kiran Kumar v. State of M.P. reported in, (2001) 9 SCC 211 .
As far as the present case is concerned, the Revision Petitioner''s only grievance is that the direction issued by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P. No. 5188 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2013, dated 24.10.2013 requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli on or before 15.11.2013 is burdensome/an onerous one. At the risk of reputation, this Court very pertinently to point out that it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused that the Petitioner is employed in a private Grocery Shop, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/- and he has no wherewithal/financial capacity to deposit such a heavy amount.
In view of the fact that the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has taken a plea before this Court that he is not in a position to comply with the onerous condition of depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, as ordered by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P. No. 5188 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2013, dated 24.10.2013, this Court based on Equity, Fair play Justice, Good Conscience and even as a matter of prudence, directs the trial Court to take into account the plight/predicament of the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused and to consider the matter afresh in so far as it relates to imposition of condition relating to the deposit of the amount, by passing a reasoned, speaking order on merits.
As such, this Court sets aside the order of the trial Court dated 24.10.2013 in Cr.M.P. No. 5188 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2013 in so far as it relates to imposition of condition whereby and whereunder the Petitioner/Accused has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli on or before 15.11.2013. Consequently, the Criminal Revision succeeds. In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed in the above terms and the Learned Principal Sessions Judge is hereby directed by this Court to hear the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused in regard to his financial capacity, ability, and viability to deposit the sum to be paid by him and to pass a reasoned speaking order on merits, of course, after providing due opportunity to him in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. The said order is to be passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli afresh by means of reasoned speaking order in a fair, just, objective and dispassionate manner in accordance with law in Cr.M.P. No. 5188 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2013 (in so far as it relates to quantum of money to be deposited by the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused as condition). No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.