SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57223

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
SAJINA. P – Appellant
Versus
PARAYIL VIJAYAN – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 6690 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN, SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH, SHRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI, SMT.ANJU DONY
For the Respondents: SMT.SEETHA S, SR Public Prosecutor

Failure to comply with court directives results in dismissal of the petition.

Headnote:This case concerns an appeal against a conviction for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner, having failed to remit the required fine amount within the stipulated time set by this Court, sought further time for payment, which was denied. Consequently, the Criminal M.C. was dismissed due to non-compliance of the court's directions. The court observed that inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, would not be exercised. The final outcome is the dismissal of the Criminal M.C.

Table of Content
1. petitioner appeals against conviction under ni act. (Para 1)
2. request for extension on fine payment denied. (Para 2)
3. court refused to exercise inherent powers due to non-compliance. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

O R D E R

Aggrieved by Annexure-1 judgment passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate – IV, Kannur, (the trial court), convicting and sentencing the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.189 of 2024 before the Court of Session, Thalassery. (the appellate court). Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed a petition to suspend the substantive sentence and fine. By Annexure-2 order, the appellate court suspended the execution of sentence, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 20% of the fine amount within two months from 04.09.2024. Subsequently, by Annexure-3 order, the appellate court enlarged the time to deposit 20% of the fine amount till 30.11.2024. Being unable to deposit the said amount within the stipulated time period and seeking enlargement of time to deposit the above amount, the petitioner has filed this Criminal M.C.

2. When the Criminal M.C. came up for consideration on 29.07.2025, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the fine amount within two weeks from 29.07.2025. Subsequently, the time period was extended by three months till 21.11.2025. Again on 21.11.2025, this Court extended the time, as a last chance, till 05.12.2025.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not remitted the 10%

of the fine amount, as directed by this Court.

5. Due to the non-compliance of the above directions, I am not inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023.

The Criminal M.C. is devoid of any merits and is consequently, dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top