I.J.Kuruvila vs K.C.George on 18 October, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3220 of 2007()


1. I.J.KURUVILA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.C.GEORGE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.SREESAKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :18/10/2007

 O R D E R
                           R. BASANT, J.
            -------------------------------------------------
                   Crl.M.C. Nos. 3220, 3221
                        & 3222 OF 2007
            -------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 18th day of October, 2007

                               ORDER

The common petitioner has been found guilty, convicted

and sentenced in three separate prosecutions – all initiated by

the same complainant/respondent herein. The verdict of

guilty, conviction and sentence have now become final with the

order passed by this Court in the revision petitions. The

petitioner in each case now faces a sentence of imprisonment

till rising of court. There is also a direction to pay

compensation and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of six months each. The petitioner was granted

time by this Court in the orders passed in the revision petitions

to appear before the learned Magistrate and receive the

sentence. He did not appear within the stipulated time. The

learned Magistrate obviously is now taking steps to execute

Crl.M.C. Nos. 3220, 3221
& 3222 OF 2007 -: 2 :-

the sentence imposed.

2. It is at this stage that the petitioner has come before this

Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant have settled

their disputes and the complainant has compounded the offence

alleged against the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is

prayed that the composition may be accepted invoking the

dictum in Sabu George v. Home Secretary (2007 (1) KLT

982).

3. Sabu George v. Home Secretary (2007 (1) KLT 982),

I must repeat, is not authority for the proposition that any and

every post revision composition can be accepted as a rule of the

thumb. The facts of the said case were peculiar and exceptional.

Notwithstanding the composition, the accused would have been

obliged to undergo a substantive sentence of imprisonment for

a long period. This Court in such situation felt that the powers

under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked to avoid such an

unjust course. The dictum in Sabu George v. Home Secretary

(2007 (1) KLT 982) can have no application whatsoever in this

case where the petitioner faces only a sentence of imprisonment

till rising of court. The petitioner can appear before the learned

Crl.M.C. Nos. 3220, 3221
& 3222 OF 2007 -: 3 :-

Magistrate and undergo the said sentence of imprisonment till

rising of court. What remains is only the liability to pay

compensation.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts and the

learned counsel for the respondent/complainant accepts that the

amount of compensation has already been paid. If that be so,

there can be no question of executing any default sentence. The

direction was only to pay compensation and there is no specific

direction to deposit the amount of compensation. If the

petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant satisfy the

learned Magistrate that the compensation amounts ordered to be

paid in these three cases have already been paid, there can be no

question of the default sentence being executed against the

petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

time prescribed by this Court in the revision petitions for the

petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate has already

expired. But that does not at all mean that the default sentence

can be imposed even when the payment has been effected. The

position has been made clear in the decision reported Girish v.

Muthoot Capital Service (P) Ltd., (2007 (1) KLT 16). There

can be no further doubt on that proposition.

Crl.M.C. Nos. 3220, 3221
& 3222 OF 2007 -: 4 :-

6. To sum up, it is for the petitioner to appear before the

learned Magistrate to undergo the substantive sentence of

imprisonment till rising of court. It is for the petitioner further

to report before the learned Magistrate along with the

complainant that the liability for payment of compensation has

already been paid and discharged. Needless to repeat, there

shall be no question of executing the default sentence thereafter.

7. With the above observations, these Crl.M.Cs. are

dismissed.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge