IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2724 of 2008() ------------------------- C.C.188/2000 OF JFMC – II, KOLLAM PETITIONER: ------------ B.RAJENDRAN, NETAJI-UMBRELLA MART, K.C./3320/XLII, MAIN ROAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. S.MOHANDAS,EYE SPECIALIST, VATHIAD, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM. REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY JANARDHANAN PILLAI, KANNPULLUVILA, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2724 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of July, 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. As per Annex.I order passed in the revision, the petitioner faces the substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. There is a further direction that the petitioner must pay an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months. The compensation amount, if realised, was directed to be released to the respondent/complainant. The petitioner was directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on or before 16.12.2006 to serve the modified sentence imposed. 2. The petitioner did not appear before the learned Magistrate on that day or thereafter till now. He has now come to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against him, including the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence, which have become final, by Crl.M.C.No. 2724 of 2008 2 invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. What is the ground? The short ground urged is that the parties have settled their disputes post-revision and the complainant has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. Whether the post-revision composition can be accepted by this Court was answered in favour of the parties, who have settled their disputes, by this Court in Sabu George v. Home Secretary (2007 (1) KLT 982). But a later decision of the Division Bench has considered this decision specifically and has overruled the same in Sudheer kumar v. Kunhiraman (2008 (1) KLT 168). In these circumstances I am of the opinion that this Court cannot countenance the post-revision composition allegedly effected. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now willing to undergo the substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of court, but apprehends that he may be compelled to suffer the default sentence also now. He had already made the payment to the complainant, though he was not able to appear Crl.M.C.No. 2724 of 2008 3 before the learned Magistrate on 16.12.2006. Entire amount of compensation having already been made, there may be a positive direction that the default sentence cannot be executed, notwithstanding the omission on the part of the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate on 16.12.2006, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I find no merit whatsoever in the apprehension of the petitioner. If the compensation amount has already been paid, the petitioner along with the complainant must appear before the learned Magistrate and satisfy the learned Magistrate that the amount of compensation payable has already been paid and the said liability has been discharged. If the petitioner ad the complainant succeed in inducing the requisite satisfaction in the mind of the learned Magistrate that the said amount has been paid, there cannot thereafter be any question of any default sentence being executed against the petitioner. If such payment has been made the Court cannot compel the petitioner to undergo the default sentence and the petitioner can and need only appear before the learned Magistrate and undergo the substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of Court. The position has been Crl.M.C.No. 2724 of 2008 4 made crystal clear in the decision in Girish v. Muthoot Capital Service (P) Ltd. 2007 (1) KLT 16). I find absolutely no necessity to issue any specific direction in the matter now. 5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed, but subject to the specific observations made above. 6. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm