IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2105 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRRP.1724/2005 Dated 31/08/2005 S.T.NO.2345/2000 OF J.M.F.C-I, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- MUJEEB RAHMAN, S/O. ABDULLAKUTTY, PADANNAYIL HOUSE, KALLUTHUMKADAVU, PUTHIYARA.P.O, CALICUT-4. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SRI.M.A.VINOD RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. PRAPHUL.P, S/O. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SREE BHAKTHI, GOVINDAPURAM.P.O, CALICUT-16. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2105 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faced indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced. He preferred appeal and revision. The verdict of guilty and conviction now stand confirmed. The petitioner faces a substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. There is a further direction under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to pay an amount of Rs.66,000/- as compensation and and in default to undergo s.i for a period of 3 months. The petitioner was directed by the revisional court to appear before the learned Magistrate on 2.11.05 to serve the modified sentence. 2. The petitioner has not so far appeared before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has now come to this Court with the submission that he has settled the disputes with the complainant and the complainant has compounded the offence alleged against him. He therefore prays that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued to save him from the sentence imposed. 3. The decision in Sabu George v. Home Secretary [2007 (1) K.L.T 982] has been overruled by the Division Bench as per the decision in Sudheerkumar v. Kunhiraman [2008 (1) KLT 168] and Crl.M.C. No.2105 of 2008 2 it is too late in the day for the petitioner to make such a request. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire amount of Rs.66,000/- has already been paid to the complainant and the complainant will vouch that fact. 5. If that be so, the petitioner along with the complainant can appear before the learned Magistrate and satisfy the learned Magistrate that the entire amount of Rs.66,000/- has already been paid to the complainant. If such payment has already been effected, there can be no question of the default sentence being executed against the petitioner. The position has been made crystal clear in the decision in Girish v. Muthoot Capital Service (P) Ltd. [2007(1) KLT 16)]. 6. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioner along with the complainant appears before the learned Magistrate and satisfies the learned Magistrate that the entire compensation amount has already been paid to the complainant, the learned Magistrate shall not execute the default sentence and shall permit the petitioner to undergo the substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C. No.2105 of 2008 3