Alexander Thomas, J.

The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as per Anx.A-1 judgment dated 30.8.2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ambalapuzha, in C.C. No. 198/2013, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein (complainant). Accordingly, the trial court had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the above said offence and to pay compensation of Rs. 2.05 lakhs under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C., with the default sentence clause of 3 months. The sentence was confirmed by the appellate sessions court (Court of Sessions Judge, Alappuzha) as per Anx.A-2 judgment dated 11.7.2016 in Crl.Appeal No.263/2014. But the appellate court had reduced the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for one year imposed by the trial court, to imprisonment till rising of the court and has confirmed the compensation of Rs. 2.05 lakhs and the default sentence clause was also reduced to 2 months. This was challenged in revision before this Court, which led Anx. A-3 order dated 20.10.2016 of this Court in Crl.R.P. No.688/2016, whereby this Court has confirmed the conviction and the modified sentence imposed on the petitioner by the appellate court, but has granted six months' time to the petitioner to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 2.05 lakhs and thereby, directed that the proceedings for execution of the impugned sentence in this case will be kept in abeyance for 6 months, which would resume after expiry of the said period, in case of default.

2. The petitioner would state the six months' time limit stipulated in Anx.A-3 order passed by this Court was upto 30.4.2017 and that due to financial difficulties, he could not raise the compensation amount within the said time limit, but that now he is in a position to pay off the entire compensation amount to the complainant within a short time. The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of the non payment of the compensation within the time limited stipulated in Anx.A-3 order, the trial court has set in motion the execution of the impugned sentence and that non bailable warrant has now been issued against him, whereby, not only the substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court and even the default sentence clause of 2 months would be executed by the trial court, on the premise that the default sentence clause automatically be set in operation, if the compensation amount was not paid within the abovesaid time limit. It is in the light of these facts and circumstances that the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the following prayers:

"(i) issue a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court Ambalapuzha to recall the conviction warrant issued in C.C No.198/2013 in execution of default sentence for nonpayment of compensation and direct his release on proof of payment of compensation when he appears for receiving substantive imprisonment;

(ii) direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha to execute the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court imposed by this Hon'ble Court in Cril R.P. No. 688/2016 on any day fixed afresh by this Hon'ble Court."

3. Heard Smt.V.Bhavana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (accused) and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to R-1 (complainant) will stand dispensed with.

4. The question that is posed for determination in this case is as to whether the default sentence clause will set in operation merely on account of non payment of the fine/compensation amount by the accused within the time stipulated in the judgment of the trial court or appellate court or revisional court, as the case may be.

5. Smt. V. Bhavana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accused would place reliance on Sections 68 and 69 of the I.P.C., more particularly on Section 68., which re