Kerala High Court
Raman Nampoodiri vs M.Chandranatha Pai on 29 June, 2007
Author: R.Basant
Bench: R.Basant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2097 of 2007()
1. RAMAN NAMPOODIRI, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.CHANDRANATHA PAI,
... Respondent
2. STATE - REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.B.PRAJITH
For Respondent :SRI.SURAJ.S
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/06/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2097 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner has been found guilty, acquitted and sentenced in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence has been upheld with modification of the sentence by an order of this Court in revision. The petitioner now has to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. He must also "pay" an amount of Rs.70,000/- as compensation to the complainant. In default of payment of the amount, the petitioner is liable to undergo S.I for a period of one month.
2. The learned Judge, who disposed of the revision, had indulgently granted the parties an opportunity to file an application for composition till 05.06.2006. That opportunity was not availed of and no application for composition was filed.
3. Now the position is that the petitioner has to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. He has also got to pay an amount of Rs.70,000/- or in default to undergo S.I for a period of one month. The petitioner along with the respondent/complainant has appeared before this Court and submits that the compensation amount has been paid and discharged. That amount having been paid and received by the complainant, there can be no question of any default sentence Crl.M.C.No.2097 of 2007 2 being executed against the petitioner. The petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant need only to satisfy the learned Magistrate that the entire liability to pay compensation has been discharged. They can appear before the learned Magistrate and file a statement to that effect. In the light of the dictum in Girish v. Muthoot Capital Service (P) Ltd. [2007(1) KLT 16)], there can then be no question of the default sentence being executed against the petitioner.
4. The petitioner still entertains an apprehension. He apprehends that the learned Magistrate may insist that the amount must be deposited in court. That certainly is not the direction issued by the appellate and revisional courts. There has only been a direction "to pay" the compensation amount. The petitioner's option to pay the amount directly and the complainant's option to receive the same directly is not fettered. Therefore that apprehension of the petitioner is without any basis.
5. In the result, this Crl.M.C is, dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant appear before the learned Magistrate and satisfy the learned Magistrate that the liability to pay compensation has been paid and discharged, there can be no question of the petitioner being compelled to undergo the default sentence. The petitioner can appear and serve the substantive sentence of Crl.M.C.No.2097 of 2007 3 imprisonment till rising of court. The petitioner shall expeditiously appear before the learned Magistrate to serve the sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and to satisfy the learned Magistrate that the compensation amount has been paid.
6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-
Crl.M.C.No.2097 of 2007 4