The legal principle established is that recovery proceedings cannot be pursued against a deceased accused without notifying the court, ensuring fair opportunity for legal recourse for the widow.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein is the widow of the deceased accused in C.C.No.152 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur. The petitioner's husband was indicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the said complaint.

2. It is pointed out that the trial court as per the judgment dated 7.12.2009 has convicted the accused for the abovesaid offence and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant under Section 352 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the default sentence clause of two months' simple imprisonment. It appears that the convicted accused had filed Criminal Appeal No.1013 of 2009 before the appellate Sessions Court concerned (Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda). It is averred that the accused had died on 20.11.2013 during the pendency of the abovesaid Criminal Appeal. It also appears that the factum of the death of the accused may not have been intimated to the criminal appellate court and presumably due to that aspect, the appellate court had proceeded on the merits of the W.P.(C) No.31718/2017 ::2::

matter and had dismissed the Criminal Appeal as per the judgment dated 29.10.2015. Thereafter, it appears that the case was taken up by the trial court for execution of the impugned sentence and for recovery of the compensation amount and non bailable warrant was issued to the accused on 3.4.2016 which appears to be repeated. Later, the trial court has issued Exhibit-P2 warrant for recovery of fine directing the Collector of Thrissur District to take appropriate steps for recovery of the fine/compensation amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. Exhibit-P2 warrant for recovery of fine appears to have been issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur, on 28.1.2016. It is this order at Exhibit-P2 that is under challenge in this writ proceedings.

3. Heard Sri.P.R.Shaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

4. Sri.P.R.Shaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits on the basis of instructions of his party that the petitioner has been advised to challenge the judgment of conviction as affirmed by the appellate court by instituting a Criminal Revision Petition before this Court. The petitioner being the widow of the accused requires some more time to collect all the papers and certified copies of the impugned judgments so as to file the revision petition before this Court and this Court may, in the interest of justice, order that the implementation of the W.P.(C) No.31718/2017 ::3::

impugned Exhibit-P2 proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for a reasonable time in order to enable the petitioner to initiate appropriate remedies in that regard.

5. In the light of these submissions it is for the petitioner to work out the remedies in accordance with law. It is ordered in the interest of justice that all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned Exhibit-P2 warrant for recovery of fine, shall be kept in abeyance until 31.12.2017 or until the initiation of appropriate proceedings by the petitioner whichever is earlier.

With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil)

stands finally disposed of.