JUDGMENT : The prayers in this O.P(Crl.) filed under the enabling provisions contained in Art.227 of the Constitution of India, are as follows: “i. to issue an order or direction to the Munsiff-Magistrate's Court No. III, Kottarakkara to recall the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner in execution of Ext.P-3 judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 33/2007 of the Additional District Court-VI, Kollam; ii. to issue such other appropriate Order or direction as is deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Notice was issued to R-2 (complainant) in this case as per order dated 9.8.2017. Now the Registry has reported that service has been duly complete in respect of R-2, but there is no appearance for that party. P.P. has already taken notice for R-1 State. 3. Heard Dr. K.P. Satheesan, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri. S. Vibheeshanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Justin Mathew, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-1 State. 4. The petitioner was earlier indicted for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 33/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kottarakkara, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein. Ext.P-1 dishonoured cheque dated 12.10.2005 involved in this case is for Rs.3.5 lakhs. The trial court as per Ext.P-1 judgment rendered on 21.12.2006 has convicted the petitioner for the abovesaid offence and has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days and has also directed him to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to the 2nd respondent (complainant) herein under Sec. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. 5. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner had filed Crl.Appeal No.33/2007 before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, (Ad Hoc-III), Kollam. The appellate Sessions Court concerned as per the judgment rendered on 18.8.2012 has confirmed the said conviction, but reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment for 30 days to simple imprisonment till the rising of the court. The compensation amount of Rs.3 lakhs was not disturbed. But both the trial court as well as the appellate court had omitted to impose any default sentence clause, in case the petitioner (accused) had not paid compensation amount. 6. The 2nd respondent herein (complainant) had preferred Crl.R.P.No. 437/2015 before this Court. It is relevant to note that the petitioner (accused) had not challenged the appellate judgment confirming the conviction in this case. 6. The 2nd respondent herein (complainant) had preferred Crl.R.P.No. 437/2015 before this Court. It is relevant to note that the petitioner (accused) had not challenged the appellate judgment confirming the conviction in this case. This Court as per Ext.P-2 order dated 12.6.2015 has disposed of Crl.R.P.No.437/2015 filed by the complainant by finding that the courts below went wrong in not imposing any default sentence to take care of the contingency of non-payment of compensation amount by the accused. Accordingly, this Court as per Ext.P-2 order rendered on 12.6.2015 had set aside the abovesaid appellate judgment and remitted the matter to the appellate court for the limited purpose of passing fresh orders regarding the default sentence clause as mentioned herein above. Since there was no challenge as against the conviction, the same had become final and conclusive. Consequent to the remit, the appellate Sessions Court as per Ext.P-3 judgment rendered on 26.9.2015 has ordered that the earlier appellate judgment dated 18.8.2012 in Crl. Appeal No. 33/2007 will stand modified to the limited extent that the accused will have to suffer default sentence of simple imprisonment for 6 months in case he does not pay the compensation amount of Rs.3 lakhs. 7. The petitioner (accused) had not paid the compensation amount of Rs.3 lakhs in compliance with the abovesaid appellate judgment and hence it appears that coercive steps were initiated against him for execution of the default sentence clause. It is at that stage, that the petitioner (accused) had approached this Court by filing the aforecaptioned O.P(Crl.) with the prayers as quoted herein above. 8. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, it was undertaken on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner would pay the compensation amount of Rs.3 lakhs directly to the complainant. Later when the matter came up for consideration on 7.8.2017, it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has already taken out a demand draft dated 5.8.2017 from the State Bank of India, Karamana branch, Thiruvananthapuram for Rs.3 lakhs payable in favour of the 2nd respondent complainant herein (Sri. S. Nandakumar, Parambu Madom, Nellikkunnam P.O., Pin 691-506) and that the said demand draft has been forwarded to the 2nd respondent complainant by speed post addressed to him. Photocopies of the demand draft, postal receipts, etc. have also been made available for the perusal of this Court. S. Nandakumar, Parambu Madom, Nellikkunnam P.O., Pin 691-506) and that the said demand draft has been forwarded to the 2nd respondent complainant by speed post addressed to him. Photocopies of the demand draft, postal receipts, etc. have also been made available for the perusal of this Court. Accordingly, this Court passed order on 7.8.2017 that all further coercive steps for execution of the impugned sentence in this case will stand deferred. It is thereafter that this Court had passed order dated 9.8.2017 directing that notice be issued to R-2 and, as stated herein above, notice has been duly served on that party, but there is no appearance for him. It was specifically directed by this Court as per order dated 9.8.2017 that, in case the 2nd respondent does not enter appearance before this Court and object to the averment of the petitioner that he has already paid the full compensation amount of Rs.3 lakhs directly to the complainant through the abovesaid demand draft dated 5.8.2017, then this Court will be constrained to infer that the said averment of the petitioner that he has already paid the entire compensation amount directly to the complainant is true and correct. 9. Today when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also made available the postal acknowledgment card forwarded by the Postal Department showing that the said postal article sent by the petitioner to the complainant has been duly received by the complainant. This Court has also perused the original of the bank remittance dated 5.8.2017 before the State Bank of India, Karamana Branch, which shows that the petitioner has taken out a D.D. for Rs.3 lakhs in the name of the complainant on the said day and also perused the photocopy of the demand draft dated 5.8.2017 as well as the original of the postal receipt as well as the abovesaid original of the postal acknowledgment card sent by the Postal Department. It appears that the 2nd respondent complainant may not be interested to enter appearance before this Court as he has already received the abovesaid demand draft and at this point of time he may not be inclined to enter appearance by engaging a lawyer, as it would involve litigative costs. It appears that the 2nd respondent complainant may not be interested to enter appearance before this Court as he has already received the abovesaid demand draft and at this point of time he may not be inclined to enter appearance by engaging a lawyer, as it would involve litigative costs. Be that as it may, in the light of these aspects, this Court is constrained to reach the conclusion that the petitioner has already paid the full compensation amount of Rs. 3 lakhs in terms of the judgment of the courts below, directly to the complainant. 10. It is averred by the petitioner that pursuant to appellate judgment dated 18.8.2012 passed by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III) Kollam in Crl.Appeal No. 33/2007, the petitioner had already undergone the substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court. 11. The office of the trial court (Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kottarakkara), has now telephonically informed the Registry of this Court that the accused in C.C. No. 33/2006 has already undergone the one day imprisonment till rising of the court on 1.12.2015. 12. So also, the petitioner has now already paid the full compensation amount of Rs.3 lakhs directly to the complainant. In the light of these aspects, it is only to be ordered that there is no necessity for the petitioner to suffer the default sentence clause and all coercive steps including non-bailable warrant issued against him for execution of the impugned default sentence clause in this case will stand recalled and rescinded. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment before the trial court for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the aforecaptioned O.P(Crl.) stands finally disposed of.