IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4290 of 2008() -------------------------------------- CRA.NO.86/04 OF ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (AHOC-I),KOLLAM C.C.NO.212/2001 OF MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE'S COURT,PARAVUR. ....... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- BINU, S/O. THANKAPPAN, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHALIL PUTHEN VEEDU, MEENAD VILLAGE, CHATHANNOOR P.O.KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. K.S.SALAM, RESIDING AT SALIM MANDIRAM, KOTTAKKERAM, PARIPALLY P.O., KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4290 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008 ORDER The petitioner was found guilty, convicted and sentenced in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence have now become final with the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.1690/07. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh as compensation under Sec.357(3) Cr.P.C. In default, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner was directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 15/10/07 to receive the sentence. 2. The petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrate so far. He has now come to this Court along with the complainant through counsel to report that the disputes Crl.M.C. No. 4290 of 2008 -: 2 :- have been settled and the offence has been compounded. It is prayed that the composition arrived at after the disposal of the revision petition may be accepted and the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence may be set aside. 2. The decision in Sabu George v. Home Secretary (2007 (1) KLT 982) has not been accepted by the Division Bench decision in Sudheer Kumar v. Kunhiraman (2008 (1) KLT 168) and the same stands overruled. Thus, accepting a post revision composition, the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence cannot now be quashed by this Court. The petitioner has to challenge the order passed in revision before the Supreme Court, if he is so advised and report composition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation amount has already been paid and discharged. In these circumstances, the default sentence may not be executed, it is prayed. It is for the petitioner and the complainant to satisfy the learned Magistrate that the compensation amount has already been paid and discharged. If the compensation amount has already been paid, there can be no question of the default sentence being executed thereafter. The position has been made crystal clear in Girish v. Muthoot Capital Service (P) Ltd., (2007 (1) KLT 16). 4. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. But Crl.M.C. No. 4290 of 2008 -: 3 :- I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to report before the learned Magistrate along with the complainant that the entire compensation amount has already been paid and discharged. Needless to say, if the learned Magistrate is so satisfied, there shall be no execution of the default sentence. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge