IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 173 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.1011/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED/COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. K.G.RAJAN S/O.GEORGE, AGED 51 YEARS, KIZHAKKEKKATTIL VEEDU, IRINGOLE P.O., PERUMBAVOOR 2. P.T.RAJEEV, S/O.THOMMY PALLICKAL HOUSE, PULLUVISZHI P.O. MALAMURY, PERUMBAVOOR BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY SMT.SHOBA NAIR RESPONDENT/STATE: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.173 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced in a prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence have now become final with the order dated 21/12/2005 in Crl.R.P.No.3273/2005 passed by this court. The petitioner must undergo imprisonment till rising of court and there was a direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,31,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of 45 days. The petitioner was directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 21/1/2006. He has not so far entered appearance. According to the petitioner, the compensation amount has already been paid and discharged. The petitioner has to undergo the substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. The petitioner is willing to do the same. 2. Why then has the petitioner/accused come before this court? The petitioner need only appear before the learned Magistrate and undergo the substantive sentence of Crl.M.C.No. 173/09 2 imprisonment till rising of court. He, along with the complainant, must then satisfy the learned Magistrate that the entire compensation amount has already been paid and discharged. The direction was only “to pay compensation” and if such payment has been made and is acknowledged by the complainant, there is no question of the petitioner being compelled to undergo the default sentence. The last trace of doubt, if any, on this aspect has been laid to rest in Girish v. Muthoot Capital Service (P) Ltd. [2007(1) KLT 16]. The petitioner has unnecessarily come to this court. 3. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner satisfies the learned Magistrate that the entire compensation amount has been paid to and received by the complainant, there can be no question of the petitioner being compelled to undergo the default sentence. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No. 173/09 3 Crl.M.C.No. 173/09 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008