1. Crl. M. Cs filed by two convicted accused, were referred by learned Single Judge doubting the correctness of the decision in Beena Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and The Central Bank of India, (2010) 2 KLT 1017. In that case conviction for the offence under S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was challenged in Crl.R.P. 1820/2009. The revision was disposed confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and payment of fine. The accused thereafter filed an application seeking a direction to the Magistrate to compound the case contending that the matter has been settled with the complainant after disposal of the revision. The learned Single Judge by the said decision reported in Beena's case (supra) found that after the disposal of the Revision Petition, composition cannot be allowed even under S. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It was then considered whether the payment of compensation and realisation of fine could be recorded based on the payment. Learned Single Judge found that proper procedure for the accused was to deposit the fine in court and thereafter for the court to pay the amount to the complainant as the compensation is payable under S. 357(1)(b) of the Code, after making necessary entries in the fine register of the Court. But on the facts of that case the learned Single Judge noted that the accused had already paid the amount to the complainant to his satisfaction and in such circumstances, directed the Magistrate to accept the statement to be filed by the complainant through his lawyer acknowledging the receipt of the amount of fine and directed to make necessary entries in the fine register that the fine is realised and paid to the complainant. Crl. M. C. 2202/2011 was filed by the accused in S.T. 1211/2005 of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumkandam who was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to be paid to the first respondent complainant and in default simple imprisonment for three months. That conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Court in Crl.A. 97/2008. But sentence was modified to imprisonment till rising of the court and compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months under S. 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Though appellant filed Crl.R.P. 3015/2009, the revision was dismissed, granting six months time to the petitioner to pay compensation provided he executes a bond for Rs. 15,000/- before the Magistrate. Petitioner did not appear before the learned Magistrate to undergo the imprisonment till rising of the Court and sought extension of time which was granted twice. But petitioner failed to pay the compensation or appear before the learned Magistrate within that period. Crl. M. C. No. 2202/2011 was thereafter filed with a prayer "to direct the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumkandam to permit the petitioner and first respondent to record their statement of settlement and make necessary entries in the fine register in connection with S.T. No. 1211/2005 and close the case forthwith".

2. Petitioner in Crl. M. C. 529/2012 was convicted for the offence under S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Punalur in C.C. 785/2003. He was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for five months and compensation of Rs. 80,000/- to the complainant. Though petitioner challenged that conviction and sentence in criminal appeal, it was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. Petitioner challenged it before this court in Crl.R.P. 2413/2008. This Court disposed the revision on 18/7/2008, confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs. 80,000/- with a direction to pay the same on realisation, as compensation under S. 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure to the complainant. This Court specifically permitted the revision petitioner either to deposit the said fine before the