A default sentence for non-payment of compensation does not extinguish the compensation owed; legal heirs can still be pursued for this liability.

JUDGMENT

The husband of the petitioner was an accused in C.C. Nos.

515 of 2003 and C. C. No. 505 of 2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court - I, Attingal, involving offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . The trial Court found him guilty, convicted and sentenced. The sentence in respect of C.C. No. 515 of 2013, subsequently came to be modified in Crl. Rev. Petition No. 333 of 2009, as per Ext. P1 judgment dated 28.01.2009. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner has suffered sentence in respect of both cases and since the compensation ordered under Section 357 (3) of the Cr. P.C. could not be satisfied, he suffered the default sentence as well. In the meanwhile, the husband of the petitioner took his last breath on 24.05.2011. The property having an extent of 7 cents in Survey No. 561/1 of Attingal Village belonging to the husband of the petitioner came to the hands of the petitioner and her son as legal heirs. The said property is being proceeded against, invoking the remedy under the Revenue Recovery Act. The disputed liability is to an extent of Rs. 1.85 lakhs, as flowing from Exts. P2 and P3 demand notices. It is also stated that the property has been put to sale, pursuant to Ext. P5 sale notice. Hence the Writ Petition.

2. The additional 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit as to the facts and figures.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the additional 3rd respondent.

4. The main case of the petitioner is that, since the deceased husband of the petitioner has undergone the default sentence, no further proceedings will lie against the petitioner for realization of the compensation ordered under Section 357 (3) of the Cr. P.C. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the said proposition is not liable to be entertained as not sustainable. The position has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court and law has been declared as per the decision reported in2012 (4) KLT 178 [ Raveendran Vs. State of Kerala ]. Paragraph 28 of the said decision is relevant, which reads as follows :

“28. The fact that an affender has undergone the default sentence for non payment of compensation awarded under S. 357 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure will no wipe out the compensation awarded. The complainant or the injured to whom the compensation is awarded is entitled to realise the same, in spite of the default sentence undergone. By virtue of provisions of S. 431, the compensation so awarded is to be recovered as provided under S. 421 of . In spite of the default sentence undergone, the court is competent to issue warrant for recovery of the compensation. No special reasons are to be recorded for issuing the warrant. The question referred is answered accordingly.

5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition and issue stands covered against the petitioner. Hence interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. However, considering the persuasive submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the plight of the petitioner and her son as on date, the petitioner is set at liberty to satisfy the liability flowing from the impugned proceedings by way of 'four' equal monthly installments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 20th of December, 2014 followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 20th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceeding being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that, if the petitioner commits any default in remitting the installments as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire outstanding liability in a lump, pursuing such steps, from the stage where it stands now.

The writ petition is disposed of as a