IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3751 of 2008() ----------------------------------- C.C. 1245/2005 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO. II, KOLLAM CRA. NO.3/2006 OF IST ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM. .......... PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/A CCUSED ------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O. GANGADHARAN, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, PERAYAM, UMAYANALLOOR, NOW RESIDING AT PALAVILA VEEDU, KURUMANNA, MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.RAJENDRAN PILLAI, KARIKKATHIL VEEDU, KIZHAVOOR, MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.LOWEL CHERIAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3751 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioner has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He now faces the prospect of a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. There is a further direction to pay an amount of Rs.45,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of four months. The order in revision was passed on 03/10/2007. The petitioner has not surrendered before the learned Magistrate so far. He has not undergone the substantive sentence of imprisonment or the default sentence. 2. The petitioner along with the complainant has now come before this court to report that the matter has been settled between the parties and the entire compensation amount has already been paid. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the sentence imposed on the petitioner may be set aside. 3. The decision in Sabu George v. Home Secretary [2007(1) KLT 982] has subsequently been overruled by a decision of the Division Bench in Sudheer Kumar v. Kunhiraman [2008(1) KLT 168]. The post revision composition, in the light of the dictum in Sudheer Kumar Crl.M.C.No.3751/08 2 (Supra), cannot now be accepted by this court. The learned counsel submits that the entire compensation amount having already been paid, there may be a direction that the default sentence need not be executed against the petitioner. 4. I find absolutely no need for any special or specific directions. The decision in Girish v. Muthoot Capital Service (P) Ltd. [2007(1) KLT 16] has laid to rest the last trace of doubt if any on this aspect. The direction is only for payment of compensation and if the petitioner and the complainant would appear before the learned Magistrate and report to the learned Magistrate that the compensation amount has been paid in full, there cannot, thereafter, be any question of execution of the default sentence. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that no specific directions are necessary. But I may hasten to observe that if the learned Magistrate is satisfied that the compensation amount, as directed by the revisional court, has already been paid by the accused and received by the complainant, there can be no question of execution of the default sentence thereafter. 5. With the above observations this Crl.M.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3751/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.3751/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008