Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1270
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
SUJITH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(Crl.) 935/2023
N.SUNIL JOSEPH
A court must provide a detailed rationale when imposing financial conditions to ensure compliance with legal standards of justification.
Headnote:
Deposit - Fine - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 148 - The court set aside the direction to deposit 25% of the fine amount due to the lack of a speaking order, requiring reconsideration under the guidelines established in relevant case law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the condition imposed by the appellate court to deposit 25% of the fine amount following a conviction. The appellate court suspended the sentence contingent upon this deposit and bond execution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the order to deposit 25% of the fine unsustainable as it lacked the necessary explanation or justification, qualifying it as a non-speaking order as per the legal requirements established by the Supreme Court.
Issues: Whether the direction to deposit 25% of the fine amount was valid and sustainable given the absence of a speaking order in the appellate court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: A speaking order is essential when imposing conditions like the deposit of fine amounts under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, necessitating clearer justification for adherence to procedural requirements.
Final Decision: The direction to deposit 25% of the fine is set aside, and the matter is to be reconsidered in line with established legal principles.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed by the Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, by which the petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the fine amount ordered in Ext.P1 judgment.
2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkala, in S.T.No.2754/2015. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal. The sentence was suspended by the appellate court with a condition that the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the fine amount. The same is challenged in this original petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Even though notice is served on the 2nd respondent through his counsel, there is no appearance.
4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that the condition to deposit 25% of the fine amount by the appellate court as per Ext.P2 is unsustainable because it is not a speaking order. The contents of Ext.P2 order is extracted hereunder:
“Heard. Sentence suspended on condition that the petitioner executes a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial court and also on condition that he deposits 25% of the fine amount within 60 days before that court.”
5. A perusal of the above order would show that it is not a speaking order while imposing the condition to deposit 25% of the fine amount. The Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. [ 2023 (6) KHC 80 ], considered this point in detail and observed that a speaking order is necessary if the court decides to impose a condition to deposit the amount as per Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . In the light of the above judgment, I think the matter is to be reconsidered by the appellate court.
Therefore this original petition (criminal) is allowed in the following manner:
1. The direction to deposit 25% of the fine amount before the trial court, as per order dated 10.10.2023 in Crl.M.P. No.7019/2023 in Crl.Appeal No.199/2023 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, alone is set aside.
2. The Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram will reconsider the question of deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , in the light of the principle laid down in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. [2023 (6)
KHC 80].
