Compliance with court directives regarding payment and proper procedure is critical in criminal justice.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.298/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakkancherry, (Trial Court) which was filed by the 2nd respondent alleging for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881, (‘NI Act’, in short).

2. By Annexure A1 judgment, the Trial Court had convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay Rs.1,10,000/- as fine. The fine amount realised was directed to be paid as compensation to the 2^nd respondent. Aggrieved by Annexure A1 judgment, the petitioner filed Crl.Appeal No. 333/2011 before the Court of Sessions, Thrissur, (Appellate Court). However, by Annexure A2 judgment the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction but modified the substantive sentence by making it till the rising of the Court and maintaining the sentence of fine/compensation. Assailing Annexure A2 judgment, the petitioner had preferred Crl. Revision Petition No.1994/2012 before this Court. But, by Annexure A3 judgment, this Court dismissed the the revision confirming the concurrent convictions, and the sentence imposed by the Appellate Court. As per Annexure A2 judgment, the petitioner was directed to undergo substantive sentence till the rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs.1,10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner was unable to pay the fine amount within the stipulated time period. Later, the petitioner paid the entire fine amount to the 2nd respondent directly, as evidenced by Annexure A4 receipt. The petitioner was under the bona fide belief that the entire proceedings was closed. Surprisingly, the Erumapetty Police has proceeded to execute a warrant issued by the Trial Court. Though, the petitioner had attempted to convince the Trial Court that he has discharged the entire fine amount, the Trial Court has refused to accept the contention. The petitioner apprehends that he may be remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent .

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the petitioner has complied with the directions in Annexure A2 judgment by directly paying the fine amount to the 2^nd respondent, which is evidenced by Annexure A4 receipt, and executed by the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, the Trial Court may be directed to not to initiate coercive proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent bluntly denies the execution of Annexure A4 receipt. She submits that the said receipt has been concocted by the petitioner. As per Annexure A2 judgment, the petitioner was bound to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court, from where the compensation amount was to be disbursed to the 2^nd respondent. Moreover, the petitioner has also not undergone the substantive sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court. There is no illegality in the Trial Court initiating coercive proceedings against the petitioner to ensure with the directions in Annexure A2 judgment.

6. By Annexure A1 judgment dated 11.04.2011, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,10,000/-. It is further ordered that, if the fine amount was realised, the same has to be paid as compensation to the 2^nd respondent under Section 357 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

7. Assailing Annexure A1 judgment, the petitioner had preferred Crl. Appeal before the Appellate Court, which by Annexure A2 judgment