K.Senthilmurugan v. P.Sathishkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Sixteenth day of November Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.13222 of 2018 IN CRL RC.1089/2016 K.SENTHILMURUGAN [ PETITIONER ] Vs P.SATHISHKUMAR [ RESPONDENT ] Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to clarify the order dated 18.05.2018 made in Crl.R.C.No. 1089 of 2016 passed by this Hon'ble court, so as to order refund of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited by him before the trial court in compliance with the order granting suspension of sentence in Crl.M.P.No.9444 of2016 Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.N.MANOKARAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/S.C.S.
SARAVANAN Advocate on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:- The prayer sought for herein is to clarify the order dated 18.05.2018 made in Crl.R.C. No.1089 of 2016 passed by this Court, so as to order refund of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited by him before the trial court in compliance with the order granting suspension of sentence in Crl.M.P. No. 9444 of 2016 in Crl.R.C. No.1089 of 2016 in order dated 06.09.2016.
2. The petitioner filed the main Criminal Revision, i.e., Crl.R.C. No.1089 of 2016 as against the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal dated 16.02.2016 in C.A.No.34 of 2015 confirming the judgment and conviction dated 04.07.2015 made in STC No.93 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode, sentencing the petitioner to undergo six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The said revision case was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 18.05.2018 where in the operative portion of the order, this Court has passed the following order.
"Therefore, for all these reasons and discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have not considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, within the parameter of the legal principles enunciated in the judgments cited above in proper perspective, and thereby, both the judgments of the Court below are liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, which are impugned herein are set aside and the revision petitioner/accused is set at liberty. The fine amount if any, paid by the revision petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him. Criminal Revision case is thus allowed accordingly."
4. It seems that pursuant to the said order, where the conviction made against the petitioner since has been set aside and he was set at liberty, he has filed a memo before the Trial Court for withdrawing the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was paid by the Petitioner pursuant to the conditional order passed by this Court while suspending the sentence imposed against him.
5. However, the said memo was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 04.08.2018 stating the reason, which reads thus, "On perusal of the order copy in Crl R.C. No.1089 of 2016 of the Hon'ble HighCourt Madras, it reveal in the result portion there is no order for refund of the compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner/accused. Without are executable then, how the petitioner can file this petition before this Court. Hence, this petition is returned."
6. Aggrieved over the same, the clarification petition has been filed.
7. I have perused the aforesaid orders. Once the judgment and conviction made by the Trial Court as confirmed by the First Appellate Court is set aside in the revision referred to above and the petitioner / accused is set at liberty, the amount deposited by the petitioner/accused, of course, pursuant to the conditional order passed by this court, while suspending the sentence, naturally has to be returned back to the petitioner and when he approached the Trial Court for withdrawing the said amount, the learned Magistrate, unfortunately had refused the same by making the aforesaid order which is palpably wrong and the learned Magistrate ought not have passed the said order.
8. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the Trial Court i.e, the Judicial Magistrate /Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode to permit the petitioner to withdraw the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which he deposited pursuant to the conditional order of suspension of sentence passed by this court, by entertaining the memo to be filed by the petitioner. With these direction, this clarification petition is disposed of.
-sd/- 16/11/2018 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FAST TRACK COURT, TIRUCHENGODE.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NAMAKKAL [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NAMAKKAL.
C.C. to M/S.N.MANOKARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges Order in CRL MP.13222/2018 in CRL RC.1089/2016 Date :16/11/2018 From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format MK:20/11/2018