Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N.ANIL KUMAR, J
PADMANABHAN .K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet/2584/2009
Negotiable Instruments - Conviction - Section 138, 357(3) - The case highlights the procedural implications following the death of an accused, impacting the enforcement of a compensation order under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for dishonoring a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to imprisonment and compensation. Following his death, the court faced the issue of enforcing the compensation without legal heirs stepping in.
Issues: Whether the death of the accused abates the sentence and what remedies remain for the complainant to recover the awarded compensation in absence of the accused's legal heirs.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of any application to implead legal heirs and the trial court's failure to impose a default sentence for compensation left the complainant without a legal path to recover funds or enforce the judgment.
Final Decision: The revision petition was closed.
ORDER
2. The 2 nd respondent, Smt.Glory Joseph, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to prosecute the accused before the trial court. By judgment dated 17.12.2007, the learned magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a compensation of Rs.6,75,000/- as compensation to the 2 nd respondent/complainant under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal before the appellate court. By its judgment dated 15.06.2009, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
3. When the revision came up for hearing on 08.09.2020, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the revision petitioner is no more. The submission was recorded by this Court. Thereafter, sufficient opportunity was afforded to the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent/complainant to implead the legal heirs of the revision petitioner/accused. However, no application to implead the legal heirs of the revision petitioner/accused is seen filed till this date.
4. Composite of imprisonment and compensation was awarded by the trial court as well as the appellate court. On going through the judgment of the trial court, it is clear that no default sentence was considered by the trial court in the event of failure on the part of the revision petitioner/accused to pay the compensation. Although the court has power to grant default sentence for non payment of compensation, the trial court did not grant such a relief to the 2 nd respondent/ complainant. The judgment of the trial court was not challenged by the 2 nd respondent/complainant in accordance with law. The revision petitioner/accused challenged the judgment before the appellate court. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. order
5. So far as imprisonment is concerned, it stands abated consequent to the death of the revision petitioner/accused. Compensation was awarded by the trial court, which was confirmed in appeal. No default sentence was provided. Under the circumstances, the remedy of the 2 nd respondent/complainant to recover the compensation by default sentence is not possible. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent/complainant has also not taken any step to implead the legal heirs of the revision petitioner/accused to pursue the revision in accordance with law.
In the result, the revision petition stands closed.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
