JUDGMENT S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. The petitioner through this original petition prays for quashing Exts. P4 and P5 notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act for the realisation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.6/92 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The charge against the petitioner was that when the petitioner was working as the Manager of Punalur Taluk Depot of Kerala Civil Supplies Corporation, he had committed of offence punishable under S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and S.409, 465, 471 and 477A of IPC. The trial court found the petitioner guilty of offence punishable under S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The petitioner was also found guilty of offence punishable under S.409 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year. These sentences were directed to run concurrently. The judgment of the trial court is produced in this case as Ext. P1. Against Ext. P1, the petitioner preferred Crl. Appeal 840/94 before this court. The appeal was dismissed by Ext.P2 judgment dated 14-7-1998. The petitioner submits that he surrendered on 14-9-1998 before the trial court to suffer the sentence imposed upon him. At that time the court below enquired with the petitioner whether he was prepared to deposit the fine amount. The petitioner has explained his inability to remit the fine amount and expressed his willingness to undergo the default sentence also. Thereafter the petitioner was sent to the Central Prison, Trivandrum to suffer the sentence of imprisonment. In the meantime he had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court as Crl. Appeal 1262/98 against the order of conviction and sentence passed against him. By order dated 23-11-1998 the Supreme Court was pleased to release the petitioner on bail. The Supreme Court's order is produced in this case as Ext. P3. It is thereafter that the petitioner was served with notices Ext. P4 and P5. They are dated 17-11-98. This is for recovery of the fine imposed upon the petitioner by Ext. P1 judgment. By order dated 23-11-1998 the Supreme Court was pleased to release the petitioner on bail. The Supreme Court's order is produced in this case as Ext. P3. It is thereafter that the petitioner was served with notices Ext. P4 and P5. They are dated 17-11-98. This is for recovery of the fine imposed upon the petitioner by Ext. P1 judgment. The petitioner submits that he is not liable to pay the fine since he had already expressed that he will undergo imprisonment. Further it is submitted that since the matter is pending before the Supreme Court the recovery cannot be proceeded. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Bindu submitted that it is a case where fine need not be given if the accused is permitted to undergo further imprisonment. Further he stated that there is a difference between the compensation awarded under S.357(3) and the fine imposed. The compensation awarded is for the benefit of the person who suffered the injury. Learned counsel brought to my notice the decision in Siby v. Vilasini ( 1998 (2) KLT 462 ) wherein Marimuthu, J. observed that compensation awarded under S.357(3) can be recovered. Further learned Judge has held that default in payment of compensation is not valid. So far as our present case is concerned, the conviction and sentence are as follows: "In the result I sentence the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months for the offence under S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(c) of P.C. Act, 1947 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year for the offence under S.409 of IPC. Both the sentence shall run concurrently". If the fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- is not paid, he has to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The petitioner had already stated that when he surrendered, he has expressed his intention to undergo imprisonment and that he is not able to pay fine. Both the sentence shall run concurrently". If the fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- is not paid, he has to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The petitioner had already stated that when he surrendered, he has expressed his intention to undergo imprisonment and that he is not able to pay fine. Further proviso to S.421(1) states as follows: "Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for specific reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under S.357'. Thus, according to me, Exts. P4 and P5 are now premature. What is ordered is not a compensation but a fine. The accused hod given an option to undergo imprisonment in default of fine. In that circumstance, the realisation of the fine arises only if the accused has not undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default. In this case now the petitioner has been released on bail by the Supreme Court. Hence, according to me, the issuance of Exts. P4 and P5 is illegal and they are quashed. The Original petition is allowed.