Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 669 (MAD)

C. Periyasmay v. A. Palanivel

2009-03-04

R.REGUPATHI

body2009
Judgment By Order dated 13. 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem in C.C.No.391 of 2006, the revision petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.1,05,000/-. 2. In the appeal preferred before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Salem though the substantive sentence was set aside, the petitioner was directed to pay the compensation, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Challenging such order passed by the lower appellate Court, the present revision is preferred before this Court. 3. While admitting the revision, conditional stay was granted by this Court on 20.1.2009, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,05,000/-before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem within a period of three months. Since compensation was not paid within three months,as directed by this Court, the revision petitioner was arrested on 12. 2009 and he is in judicial custody. 4. The respondent/complainant has filed a "Memo of Compromise", wherein it is stated that on the date of arrest itself i.e., 12. 2009, the amount of compensation viz., Rs.1,05,000/- was paid, however, in view of the earlier order passed by this Court, the revision petitioner continues to be in judicial custody. 5. The respondent/complainant, who appeared in person today, has submitted that since the amount of Rs.1,05,000/-has been paid, he is no more interested in pursuing the dispute and he has also made an endorsement in that regard and to that effect has already filed a Memo of Compromise. 6. In the Memo of Compromise, both the parties have signed. The signature of the revision petitioner was attested by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Salem and that of the respondent by the counsel for the complainant. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and of the fact that the entire amount of compensation has already been paid, the revision petitioner need not undergo default sentence and accordingly while setting aside such sentence, the revision petitioner viz., C. Periyasamy is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. The Memo of Compromise shall form part of the records. 8. The Criminal Revision Case is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected MP is closed.