IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.RC.No. 1 of 2004(E) ----------------------- CRA.73/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.53/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- PARTIES: 1. THOMAS, S/O. JOSEPH, VARAKIL (H) PAYAPPARKARA LALAM VILLAGE, PALA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY . SUO MOTU BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORMR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL RIVISION CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.C.No. 1 of 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of April , 2008 ORDER Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the accused (Thomas) and the learned counsel for the complainant (Anni.T.C.) 2. In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the learned Sessions Judge, Kottayam in Crl.A. No.73 of 1998, at the instance of the accused after confirming the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, set aside the sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.20,000/- imposed on him by the trial court and directed the appellant/accused to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3)Cr.P.C. 3. Crl.M.C.No.504 of 2001 was filed by the accused challenging the non-bailable warrants of arrest issued by the trial court for realisation of the compensation awarded by the lower appellate court under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. While entertaining CRL.R.C.NO. 1/2004 -2- the said petition, this Court noticed the illegality in the appellate order which directed payment of compensation alone under Section 357(3)Cr.P.C. without a sentence. This Court therefore directed the initiation of suo motu revision. That is how this Crl.revision case came to be registered. 4. The lower appellate court was wrong in setting aside the imprisonment as well as fine and merely directing the accused to pay the sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3)Cr.P.C. A compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.presupposes a sentence which can either be imprisonment or fine. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant admitted that the accused has paid the compensation part of the judgment of the lower appellate court. It is hereby directed that the sum of Rs.15,000/- which the accused has admittedly paid to the complainant shall be treated as fine. Since the accused has already paid the amount to the complainant, no default sentence is proposed to be imposed. This Crl.revision case is disposed of accordingly. ks. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE CRL.R.C.NO. 1/2004 -3- V. RAMKUMAR, J. CRL.R.C.NO.1 OF 2004 ORDER 2nd April 2008 CRL.R.C.NO. 1/2004 -4- V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No. 504 of 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of April , 2008 ORDER In view of the dismissal of the Crl.revision Case No.1 of 2004, this Crl.M.C.is also disposed of accordingly. ks. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE