IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2895 of 2008() ------------------------- C.C.NO.10/2000 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRRP.2772/2006 OS.378/2000 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- B RAJENDRAN, NETAJI - UMBRALLA MART, K.C/3320/XLII, MAIN ROAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE SRI.K.J.JOMSON RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANONMONY, W/O KANNNAN, RADHAS AGENCIES, MAIN ROAD, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY R.KANNAN. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2895 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner was found guilty, convicted and sentenced in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence have become final with the order dt. 14.8.2006 in Crl.R.P. No.2772 of 2006. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. He has been directed to pay compensation. A default sentence has also been prescribed. The petitioner, along with the respondent/complainant, has now come to this Court to report that the disputes between them have been settled and the offence has been compounded by the respondent/complainant. 2. This Court did take the view earlier in Sabu George v. Home Secretary (2007 (1) KLT 982) that a post-revision composition can be accepted to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to accept the composition. But later a Division Bench of this Court in Sudheer Kumar v. Kunhiraman (2008 Crl.M.C.No. 2895 of 2008 2 (1) KLT 168) overruled the said decision and took the view that post- revision composition cannot be reckoned as valid and acceptable. 3. The petitioner therefore, unless he chooses to challenge the order in revision, has to undergo the substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of Court. If he makes payment or has already made the payment of compensation amount and he satisfies the learned Magistrate that the claim of the complainant is satisfied, there can thereafter be no question of the default sentence being executed against him. The position has been made crystal clear in the decision in Girish v. Muthoot Capital Services (P) Ltd. (2007 (1) KLT 16) . Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had not appeared before the learned Magistrate on the stipulated date, he cannot be compelled to undergo the default sentence, if he has paid the compensation amount to the complainant. The petitioner need only have approached the learned Magistrate and brought the decision in Girish (supra) to the notice of the learned Magistrate. 4. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed, but with the observation that if the petitioner has paid the amount and the complainant is satisfied about Crl.M.C.No. 2895 of 2008 3 such payment and they induce the requisite satisfaction in the mind of the learned Magistrate, there can be no question of the default sentence being executed thereafter. (R. BASANT) Judge tm