IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 661 of 2010() ----------------------------------- ST.1547/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- P.K. RAJENDRAN, PEKKAVIL HOUSE, CHELAKOMPU P.O., KARUKACHAL. BY ADV. MR.B.PREMOD RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. T.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, THADATHUMKUZHYIL, THIRUNAKKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR. R2 BY ADV. MR.BIMAL K NATH. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.661 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.No.1547/2005 by Judicial First Class Magistrate- I, Kottayam. Crl.A.No.125/2007 filed by the petitioner challenging the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Kottayam was dismissed. Petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.4133/2008 before this Court. It was also dismissed on 19.12.2008. This petition is thereafter filed for permission to compound the offence. 2. When the lis was finally disposed by Annexure-3 order dated 19.12.2008, the case cannot be compounded thereafter. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Ibrahim.K.M. v. K.P.Mohammed (2010 (1) KLD 76), argued that even after the disposal of the revision, a case could be compounded under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, I cannot agree with the submission. That was a case where the order of the CRMC 661/10 2 revisional court was challenged before the Apex Court, on obtaining leave. When that was pending before the Apex Court, there was a settlement of the dispute and the question considered was whether disposal of a revision would prevent compounding of the offence under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the case was not finally disposed and in such circumstances, it was held that permission could be granted to compound the offence. As far as this case is concerned, the case was finally disposed by Annexure-3 order. Therefore, permission cannot be granted as sought for. If petitioner satisfies the learned Magistrate that fine, which is to be paid to the complainant on realisation as compensation, was paid directly, learned Magistrate not to direct the petitioner to undergo the default sentence. Petition is disposed. 25th February, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv