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. 1693 of 2008() ------------------------- CC 605/01 OF JFCM, PALA & CR.A. 368/04 OF SESSIONS COURT KOTTAYAM PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- SINDHU RAJEEV VELLIYANTHADATHIL HOUSE KURIANADU, KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SABU RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. ELSAMMA THOMAS, VETTIKKATTIL HOUSE, KURIANADU, KOTTAYAM 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KOTTAYAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 1693 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008 O R D E R There is no representation for the petitioner today also. The same was the situation on 22.4.2008, when the matter came up for hearing. I have perused the records. 2. The petitioner faced indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced. In an appeal filed, the verdict of guilty and conviction were upheld. The sentence was modified and reduced. The petitioner again came to this Court challenging the appellate judgment and by Annex.A3 order this Court allowed the revision petition in part. The sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of Court. The direction for payment of compensation was upheld and the petitioner was granted three months further time to make the payment of the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- The petitioner was directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 23.5.2006 to receive the sentence. Crl.M.C.No. 1693 of 2008 2 2. The petitioner did not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed on 23.5.2006. She has now come before this Court with the contention that the complainant has settled the disputes and has compounded the matter. The petitioner, in these circumstances, prays that the composition may be accepted and she may be saved of the trauma of undergoing the sentence. 3. The decision in Sabu George v. Home Secretary (2007 (1) KLT 982) has later been overruled by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sudheer Kumar v. Kunhiraman (2008 (1) KLT 168). There can hence be no post-revision composition. 4. If the petitioner and the complainant has settled their disputes, they can appear before the learned Magistrate and report to the learned Magistrate that the compensation amount has already been paid. If the learned Magistrate is satisfied about that submission, there can be no question of execution of any default sentence. The direction was only to “pay the compensation” and if the learned Magistrate is satisfied that such payment has been made, the petitioner need thereafter undergo only the sentence of imprisonment till rising of Court. I repeat that if Crl.M.C.No. 1693 of 2008 3 the learned Magistrate is satisfied that the payment has been made by now, there can be no question of the default sentence being executed. The position has been made crystal clear in the decision in Girish v. Muthoot Capital Services (P) Ltd. (2007 (1) KLT 16). 5. The learned Prosecutor alertly points out that the petitioner is reported to be in prison. That circumstance cannot also alter the situation. The petitioner can appear through counsel and satisfy the learned Magistrate that the compensation amount has been paid, whereupon the learned Magistrate must immediately put an end to the execution of the default sentence and set the petitioner at liberty. 6. This Crl.M.C. is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations. 7. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm