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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
T.K. SUBHASH – Appellant
Versus
BABY U.S – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1615 OF 2026 | Crl.A NO.376 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.K.SREEJITH, SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH, SMT.SURYA P., SMT.DIVYA G. NAIR, SHRI.THOMAS JOY, SHRI.JOJO K. J., SHRI.RAJAN K., SHRI.RADHAKRISHNAN K. B., SHRI.SANTHOSH K.
For the Respondents: PP SRI M P PRASANTH

The court has the inherent power to extend deadlines concerning financial penalties to prevent undue hardship.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: This case concerns the inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Facts of the Case: The petitioner challenges an order requiring a 20% fine deposit within a timeframe.

Findings of Court:
The Court determined that a lenient view was warranted based on the petitioner's financial constraints.

Issues: The court questions the viability of the fine deposit given the petitioner's financial hardships.

Ratio Decidendi: The decision to extend the deadline for fine deposit reflects the court's inclination to exercise inherent powers to mitigate hardship.

Result: The Crl.M.C. is allowed, extending the deposit deadline for 20% of the fine amount by one month.

Table of Content
1. explains the circumstances leading to the appeal concerning the fine imposed. (Para 1 , 2)
2. highlights the arguments presented by both sides regarding financial capability. (Para 3)
3. describes the court's reasoning and invocation of inherent powers. (Para 4)

O R D E R

Dated this the 26th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.376/2025 on the file of the Court of Session, Thalassery, (‘Appellate Court’, in short), which has been filed against the conviction and the sentence imposed on him in S.T.C.No.2576/2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannur, (‘Trial Court’, in short).

2. The petitioner has stated in the criminal Miscellaneous Case that along with the appeal, he filed an application to suspend the execution of the substantive sentence and fine imposed on him. By the impugned Annexure A1 order, the Appellate Court has directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount within two months. Due to the petitioner’s financial hardships, he is not in a position to deposit the above amount within the prescribed time period. Therefore, the petitioner prays the time period fixed in Annexure A1 order may be extended by a further period of one month. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

4. On a consideration of the peculiar facts and the reasons stated in the Crl.M.C., I am satisfied that a lenient view can be taken in the matter. Hence, I am inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

In the aforesaid circumstance, I allow the Crl.M.C., by extending the time period fixed in Annexure A1 order, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount, by a further period of one month from today. It is made clear that no further enlargement will be granted.

Sd/

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