IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2214 of 2008()
1. MRS.CICILY IGNATIOUS, GENERAL MANAGER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. MEERA.O.KHONA, 14-3D, SHERIN MANZIL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.MILTON
For Respondent :SMT.SANTHI K.PAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :12/06/2008
O R D E R
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