IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 309 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRA. NO.320/06 OF THE IIIRD ADDL. SESIONS COURT, KOLLAM. C.C. 648/2001 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR. ........... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- PRAKASH, S/O.PARAMU, PLACHIPOIKA KIZHAKKATHIL, THAZHAM SOUTH, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------- 1. G.PRABHAKARAN, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, ASWATHY, THAZHAM, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.309 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The matter has attained finality with the order dated 5/6/07 in Crl.R.P.No.2207/07. The petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. There is a further direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The petitioner was directed by the revisional court to appear before the learned Magistrate on or before 5/12/07 to receive the sentence. 2. The petitioner did not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed. He has now come to this Court to apprise this Court of the fact that he has settled his disputes Crl.M.C. No.309 of 2009 -: 2 :- with the complainant and that the entire compensation liability has been discharged. 3. If that be so, it is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and satisfy the learned Magistrate that the amounts due have been paid to the complainant. If the learned Magistrate is satisfied about that, there can be no question of executing the default sentence. The position has been made crystal clear in the decision in Girish v. Muthoot Capital Service (P) Ltd., (2007 (1) KLT 16). There can be no surviving doubts on that aspect now. I am not satisfied that any further directions deserve to be issued. 4. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner and the complainant satisfy the learned Magistrate that the compensation amount has already been paid and discharged, there can be no question of the petitioner being compelled to undergo the default sentence and the petitioner in that case shall only be liable to undergo the sentence of imprisonment till rising Crl.M.C. No.309 of 2009 -: 3 :- of court as per the order dated 5/6/07 in Crl.R.P.No.2207/07. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge