IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2214 of 2008() ------------------------- CRA.868/2001 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.852/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER: 3RD ACCUSED: ------------------------ MRS.CICILY IGNATIOUS, GENERAL MANAGER, M/S.PALAMATTOM CHITTIES (P) LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, AMBADI BUILDING XL/6928, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-35 RESIDING AT DOOR NO.52/1108 KATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, FATHER MULAVARICKAL ROAD, KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-13. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.MILTON RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MEERA.O.KHONA, 14-3D, SHERIN MANZIL, CHULLIKKAL, KOCHI-5 REPRESENTED BY HER BROTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRIKANTILAL.O.KHONA, 14-3D, SHERIN MANZIL, CHULLIKKAL, KOCHI-5. BY ADV. SMT.SANTHI K.PAI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2214 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo a substantive sentence of imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay compensation coupled with a default sentence. The verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence have been upheld by all courts including this court in revision and the same has become final. 2. The sentence has not been executed so far. The petitioner, the third accused, has come before this court now with a request that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the sentence and save the petitioner from the obligation of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment. The matter is settled. The amounts due have been paid. Complainant has compelled the offence, it is submitted. 3. This court had taken a view in Sabu George v. Home Secretary [2007(1) KLT 982] that such post revision composition can be taken into account as a justifiable reason to invoke the Crl.M.C.No.2214/08 2 jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and save the accused of the obligation to undergo any substantive sentence of imprisonment. But a Division Bench of this court in Sudheer Kumar v. Kunhiraman [2008(1)KLT 168 has overruled the said decision and has taken the view that such post revision composition cannot be a justifiable reason to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. This court is, in these circumstances, helpless and has to dismiss this Crl.M.C observing that it is for the petitioner now to seek his remedy before the Supreme Court. The learned counsel relies on the decision in Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. [2008(1)KLT 1 (SC)]. That decision is no authority for the proposition that a post revision composition can be accepted by the High Court. The said decision and all the decisions referred to in that decision do only refer to composition when the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. 5. This Crl.M.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.2214/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.2214/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007