IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1693 of 2008()
1. SINDHU RAJEEV
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ELSAMMA THOMAS, VETTIKKATTIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.SABU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :21/05/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 1693 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008
O R D E R
There is no representation for the petitioner today also.
The same was the situation on 22.4.2008, when the matter came
up for hearing. I have perused the records.
2. The petitioner faced indictment in a prosecution under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He was found guilty, convicted and
sentenced. In an appeal filed, the verdict of guilty and conviction
were upheld. The sentence was modified and reduced. The
petitioner again came to this Court challenging the appellate
judgment and by Annex.A3 order this Court allowed the revision
petition in part. The sentence was reduced to imprisonment till
rising of Court. The direction for payment of compensation was
upheld and the petitioner was granted three months further time
to make the payment of the compensation amount of
Rs.50,000/- The petitioner was directed to appear before the
learned Magistrate on 23.5.2006 to receive the sentence.
Crl.M.C.No. 1693 of 2008
2
2. The petitioner did not appear before the learned Magistrate as
directed on 23.5.2006. She has now come before this Court with the
contention that the complainant has settled the disputes and has
compounded the matter. The petitioner, in these circumstances, prays
that the composition may be accepted and she may be saved of the
trauma of undergoing the sentence.
3. The decision in Sabu George v. Home Secretary (2007
(1) KLT 982) has later been overruled by the decision of a Division
Bench of this Court in Sudheer Kumar v. Kunhiraman (2008 (1)
KLT 168). There can hence be no post-revision composition.
4. If the petitioner and the complainant has settled their disputes,
they can appear before the learned Magistrate and report to the learned
Magistrate that the compensation amount has already been paid. If the
learned Magistrate is satisfied about that submission, there can be no
question of execution of any default sentence. The direction was only
to “pay the compensation” and if the learned Magistrate is satisfied that
such payment has been made, the petitioner need thereafter undergo
only the sentence of imprisonment till rising of Court. I repeat that if
Crl.M.C.No. 1693 of 2008
3
the learned Magistrate is satisfied that the payment has been made by
now, there can be no question of the default sentence being executed.
The position has been made crystal clear in the decision in Girish v.
Muthoot Capital Services (P) Ltd. (2007 (1) KLT 16).
5. The learned Prosecutor alertly points out that the petitioner is
reported to be in prison. That circumstance cannot also alter the
situation. The petitioner can appear through counsel and satisfy the
learned Magistrate that the compensation amount has been paid,
whereupon the learned Magistrate must immediately put an end to the
execution of the default sentence and set the petitioner at liberty.
6. This Crl.M.C. is in these circumstances dismissed with the
above observations.
7. Hand over the order.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm