The court upheld the finality of previous judgments, stating that separate proceedings cannot obstruct the enforcement of a conviction.

ORDER

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash Annexure A7 proceedings passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-6, Ernakulam (‘Trial Court’, for brevity), issuing a non-bailable warrant against the petitioners.

2. The brief facts in the Crl.M.C. are as follows:

The petitioners were the accused 1 to 3 in S.T.

No. 2373/2008 on the file of the Trial Court, which was filed by the second respondent alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . By Annexure A1 judgment, the Trial Court convicted the first petitioner company and the petitioners 2 and 3 and sentenced the first petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and the petitioners 2 and 3 to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,65,000/- to the second respondent, with a default sentence of one month. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-2), Ernakulam (‘Appellate Court’, for short). The appeal was partly allowed by confirming the conviction, but by modifying the sentence to the extent that the petitioners 2 and 3 to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,32,500/- each to the second respondent. Assailing the said judgment, the petitioners filed Crl.R.P. No. 1152/2013 before this Court. By Annexure A2 order, this Court confirmed the conviction but modified the substantive sentence of imprisonment as against the petitioners 2 and 3 by ordering them to undergo simple imprisonment for one day till the raising of the court, and ordering them to pay Rs. 5,32,500/- to the second respondent within six months from the date of order, i.e., 26.06.2013, and in default to undergo a simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. The execution of the sentence was directed to be kept in abeyance till 01.01.2014. The petitioners have not paid the compensation as directed by this Court. Instead, in the meantime, the petitioners had filed WP.(C) No. 19136/2010 before this Court to direct the second respondent to initiate steps to independently value the entire assets mortgaged by the first petitioner and to stay all further proceedings in all the cases in Ext.P1 list produce along with the said writ petition. By Annexure A4 order dated 13.08.2010, this Court had stayed all the coercive proceedings. The said order was extended from time to time. In view of Annexure A4 order, the sentence imposed on the petitioners cannot be executed. Although the petitioners raised the said contention before the Trial Court, the same has been rejected by Annexure A7 proceedings. Annexure A7 proceedings are per se erroneous and improper. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. When the Crl.M.C. came up for consideration on 24.05.2023, this Court, by a detailed interim order, found that the petitioners 2 and 3 are bound to pay Rs. 10,65,000/- to the second respondent, but they had only deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- before the Trial Court. Thus, this Court observed that no further time can be granted to the petitioners for the payment of the compensation amount because Annexure A2 order was passed in the year 2013. However, on the undertaking made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all efforts would be made to pay the compensation amount, as a last chance, the petitioners were granted one month’s time from 24.05.2023 to remit the balance amount of Rs.

3,00,000/-.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

5. S.T. No. 2373/2008 was filed by the second respondent before the Trial Court in the year 2008. The proceedings culminated in Annexure A1 judgment on 27.03.2010. Although the petitioners carried the matter in appeal as well as the revision, the conviction