Prior compounding of cases influences the computation of custody time, justifying release even if further legal proceedings are pending.

ORDER

Dated this the 10th day of December, 2021 This petition is filed challenging an order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kayamkulam (for short ‘the court below’) in C.C.No.885/2002 on 02.12.2021. By the order assailed, a petition filed by the petitioner seeking to release him from custody was dismissed by court below for the reason that the period of default sentence will end only on

22.12.2021.

2. The grievance of the petitioner was that he was arrested in C.C.No.885/2002 on 31.08.2021 and the sentence liable to be served was to pay fine or to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, in case of default. The period of sentence would expire on 30.11.2021 and he is entitled to get an order of release.

3. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor on instructions that the petitioner stands convicted and sentenced in four prosecutions under Section 138 of the N.I Act. In each case he was sentenced to pay fine and in default to undergo imprisonment for three months. Two cases were settled and compounded. Later he was arrested on 31.08.2021. He failed to pay the fine amount in C.C.No. 885/2002. Therefore, he has to serve imprisonment for three months as default sentence. True that the arrest was on 31.08.2021. While in custody C.C.No. 913/2002 was compounded and he was released only on 28.09.2021. It may be that, the petitioner was taken into custody when the judgments passed in C.C.No.913/2002 and C.C.No.885/2002 are pending execution. When C.C.No.913/2002 was compounded the compounding has the impact of acquittal and therefore, the period served in custody can only be treated as serving sentence in C.C.No.885/2002. Therefore, as rightly urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner , the custody of the petitioner from 31.08.2021 would only be serving sentence in C.C.No.885/2002 and three months would expire on 29.11.2021. Therefore, the court below was not correct in dismissing his application by passing the impugned order. The petitioner is entitled to get an order of release in his favour on 29.11.2021 itself.

In the result, Crl.M.C. is allowed. The order assailed is set aside. The petitioner is entitled for release forthwith. Issue release order in petitioner’s favour to the authorities of Jail where he is serving custody.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

MJL

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6090/2021 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN CRL.R.P.NO.2610/2006 DATED 31/07/2006.

ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF RELEASE ISSUED BY THE JFCM COURT-I, KAYAMKULAM ON 23/10/2021 IN CONNECTION WITH C.C.NO.780/2002.

ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF RELEASE ISSUED BY THE JFCM COURT-I, KAYAMKULAM ON 28/09/2021 IN CONNECTION WITH C.C.NO.913/2002.

ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF RELEASE ISSUED BY THE JFCM COURT-1, KAYAMKULAM ON 28/09/2021 IN CONNECTION WITH C.C.NO.340/2002.

ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/11/2021 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.C.NO.5531/2021.

ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/12/2021 ISSUED BY THE JFCM COURT-I, KAYAMKULAM MADE IN C.C.NO.885/2002.

RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL TRUE COPY P A TO JUDGE