V.SATHEESAN v. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENTS:

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA.

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHERTHALA.

STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUTHIATHODE POLICE STATION,

K.S. REMADEVI, DEPUTY MANAGER, KELTRON AREA SALES OFFICE, KHALIFA BUILDINGS, S.R.M. ROAD, KOCHI, RESIDING AT RAM NIVAS NEAR KSEB OFFICE, KUTHIATHODE, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.AMJAD ALI FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.18039 of 2009 Q -------------------------- JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to execute the warrant pending against the fifth respondent in C.C.No.1046/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Cherthala. Fifth respondent was the accused in the case, which was taken cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on a complaint filed by the petitioner. She was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It was confirmed in appeal. She filed Crl.R.P. No.55/2008 before this Court challenging the conviction and sentence. Under Exhibit P1 order, the revision was allowed in part reducing the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.1,65,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for five months with a direction that on realisation of the fine, it is to be paid to the petitioner as compensation under Section WPC 18039/09 2 357(3) of Code of criminal Procedure. This petition is filed contending that even though fifth respondent did not surrender or deposit the fine, no effective steps are being taken.

2. Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town North Police Station filed a statement to the effect that though a warrant was issued by the learned Magistrate, it could not be executed as the whereabouts of the fifth respondent could not be traced out. The statement also discloses that fifth respondent, though was an employee in Keltron, Ernakulam, did not attend the office and later retired from service on 30.6.2009 and even at the time of her retirement, she did not attend the office. It is submitted that all earnest efforts are made to trace out the fifth respondent. Recording the statement, petition is disposed. It is for the Magistrate to take effective steps to execute the sentence. 7th October, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)