Sulthan vs. K Sarojini

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.683 OF 2019 (@ out of SLP (Crl.) No.2098/2019)

Signature Not Verified

SULTHAN Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

K SAROJINI Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

In connection with complaint filed under the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, the appellant was tried in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, in C.C. No.380/2007. By its judgment and order dated 10.07.2009, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years.

In the appeal preferred therefrom, the appellate Court affirmed the view taken by the Judicial Magistrate and dismissed Appeal No.140 of 2009 by its judgment and order dated 20.04.2010.

The appellant being aggrieved filed Crl. Rev. Case No.849 of 2010 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court while upholding the conviction modified the sentence and directed the appellant to pay double the cheque amount i.e. an amount of Rs.4 lakhs by way of compensation to the respondent. It was further directed that in case of any failure to deposit the sum, the sentence passed by the Courts below would stand revived.

It is matter of record that no such payment was made within the time stipulated and the appellant was taken into custody on 26.04.2018. Digitally signed by INDU MARWAH Date: 2019.04.23 17:17:31 IST Reason:

On 25.02.2019 while issuing notice in the matter, this Court had directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs in the trial court. This Court also directed that the appellant, pending further consideration, be released on interim bail.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, as well as the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant.

The appellant has completed around ten months in custody and has also in terms of the directions issued by this Court, deposited a sum of Rs.2 lakhs which is the amount of cheque in question.

In our view, the ends of justice would be met, if the amounts so deposited is made over to the respondent-complainant and the quantum of sentence is reduced to that the appellant has already undergone. We order accordingly. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant, the substantive sentence is modified to the period that the appellant has already undergone.

The trial court is directed to make over the sum of Rs.2 lakhs deposited in terms of the order dated 25.02.2019, with interest accrued thereon to the respondent-complainant within two weeks from the receipt of this order.

The bail bonds given by the appellant stand discharged.

With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is partly allowed.

........................J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT)

.......................J. (INDU MALHOTRA)

New Delhi, April 15,2019. 2

ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2098/2019

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-06-2015 in CRLRC No. 849/2010 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Madras) SULTHAN Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

K SAROJINI Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.31017/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.31018/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.31016/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING )

Date : 15-04-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

• For Petitioner(s) Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ashish Kr. Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr.Babul Kumar, Adv.
• For Respondent(s) Mr. T.R.B. Sivakumar, AOR Mr. I. Ganeshan, Adv. Mr. Chandan Shreekant Malapur, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeal is partly allowed of in terms of the signed order.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(INDU MARWAH) (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER (signed order is placed on the file)