IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. G. Arun, J
JASEELA.M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court discusses the implications of the order on the respondent. (Para 4) |
O R D E R
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2025 The challenge in this Crl.M.C is against Annexure A2 order of the Appellate Court, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court while convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . The impugned order is issued in exercise of the power under Section 148 of the and as a condition for suspending the execution of petitioner’s sentence.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of pointing out patent illegalities in the judgment, the appellate court had mechanically directed to deposit 20% of the fine amount.
3. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
4. As the order I propose to pass does not prejudice the 2nd respondent in any manner, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with.
5. The Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari v.
M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. [2023 (6) KHC 80] , while upholding the power of the appellate court to impose the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148 , held that if
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.