IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3570 of 2007()
1. N.K.DAMODHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
For Petitioner :SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :28/11/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 3570 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner has been found guilty, convicted and
sentenced in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
The verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence have now become
final. The petitioner faces the sentence of imprisonment till
rising of court. There is a further direction to pay an amount of
Rs.37,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a
period of 45 days. The petitioner was directed to appear before
the learned Magistrate on 30.11.2007 to serve the modified
sentence. The petitioner did not appear on that day. Long later
he has been taken into custody in execution of the warrant of
arrest issued by the learned Magistrate and he is undergoing the
default sentence, submits the learned counsel. At this stage, the
parties have settled the disputes. They have filed an application
for composition. It is prayed that the composition may be
accepted and the sentence imposed on the accused may be set
Crl.M.C.No. 3570 of 2007
2
aside. There is a further prayer that at any rate the amounts having
already paid, the petitioner may be directed to be released forthwith.
2. The prayer obviously is to invoke the dictum in Sabu George
v. Home Secretary (2007 (1) KLT 982). That decision is no
authority for the proposition that any and every post-revision
composition can or ought to be accepted. The petitioner in this case
was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of Court and to pay
compensation. Of course, default sentence has also been imposed.
3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find no reason to
invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under section 482
Cr.P.C. and to accept the post-revision composition and set aside the
sentence. The petitioner has already undergone the substantive
sentence of imprisonment till rising of court, it is submitted. The
complainant, who has entered appearance through his counsel, now
asserts before court that the complainant has received the entire
compensation amount from the accused. The respondent is represented
by counsel. A joint statement has been filed. I do, in these
Crl.M.C.No. 3570 of 2007
3
circumstances, accept the said statement of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the respondent.
4. Compensation amount having already paid and discharged,
the petitioner is not bound to undergo any default sentence. In as much
as it is submitted that the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment in
default now, I am satisfied that there can be a direction to the learned
Magistrate to forthwith release the petitioner from custody. The
compensation amount having already been paid, though belatedly,
there can be no question of the default sentence being executed against
the petitioner. The position has been made crystal clear in the decision
in Girish v. Muthoot Capital Services (P) Ltd. (2007 (1) KLT 16).
5. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed in part. There shall be a
direction to the learned Magistrate to forthwith direct release of the
petitioner, he being not liable to undergo any default sentence now, in
view of the admitted payment of compensation amount. Normally this
court would have only directed the learned Magistrate to consider the
submissions and pass appropriate orders, but in as much as it is
Crl.M.C.No. 3570 of 2007
4
submitted that the petitioner is now undergoing the default sentence
from 27.11.2007, I am satisfied that orders in favour of the petitioner
can be passed by this Court.
6. Hand over copy to day itself.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm