IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1813 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.126/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- RAMAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN, KADUVINALTHARAYIL VEEDU, KAPPILMEKKU MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAMESH KUMAR, ALAPPURATHU VEEDU, S.V.WARD, KAYAMKULAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 1813 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. After the revisional order, a copy of which is Annex.A3, the petitioner has to undergo the sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. He has to further pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of 30 days. Another Bench of this Court had directed that the petitioner shall have time till 10.7.07 to appear before the learned Magistrate to receive the sentence. According to the petitioner he had already paid the amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and the complainant has accepted the same. But the petitioner was not able to comply with the direction to appear before the learned Magistrate on 10.7.07. The petitioner therefore apprehends that the default sentence may be executed against him if and when he appears before the learned Magistrate. Crl.M.C.No. 1813 of 2008 2 2. I find no merit or substance in the apprehension of the petitioner. If the compensation amount has been paid, it is for the petitioner and the complainant to appear before the learned Magistrate and satisfy the learned Magistrate that such payment has been made. If the learned Magistrate is satisfied about such payment, there can thereafter be no question of execution of the default sentence. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner did not appear before the learned Magistrate on 10.7.07, he can now appear before the Magistrate. If he satisfies the learned Magistrate that compensation amount has already been paid by him and received by the complainant he need only undergo the substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of Court. He need not have to undergo the default sentence. The position has been made clear in the decision in Girish v. Muthoot Capital Services (P) Ltd. (2007 (1) KLT 16). No further directions appear to be necessary. 4. This petition is accordingly dismissed, but with the above specific observations. 5. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm Crl.M.C.No. 1813 of 2008 3