IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER, 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3050 of 2011 ------------------------------------- [CRA.517/2006 of ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , S.T.NO.349 OF 2006 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VIII, THIRUVNANATHAPURAM) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------- S.LALITHAMBIKA, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O. LATE PRABHAKARAN, ATTENDER (RETD), ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BAHAN, TRIVANDRUM, NOW RESIDING AT PAZHAYA VEEDU, ANAYARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 012. BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SRI.K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. G. MANIKANTAN NAIR, AGED 60 YEARS, KAIRALI MANDIRAM, PAROTTUKONAM, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM - 695 021. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PRSOECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682031. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC FOR R1 BY PUBLIC POROSECUTOR SMT.A.LOWSY. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 3050 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act and the trial court as well as the lower appellate court found that the accused is guilty and accordingly she is convicted and sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No. 11028/2011, this court allowed the parties to compound the offence and accordingly, the composition of the said offence is recorded. The revision petitioner has also complied with the condition of paying cost, as fixed by this Court, on the basis of the guideline issued by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457]. In the light of the composition of the offence between the contesting parties, I am of the view that this Crl. R.P can be allowed, acquitting the accused in terms of Section 320(8) Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 2011 -:2:- of Cr.P.C. 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 9.5.2006 in S.T.No. 349 of 2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Thiruvananthapuram and the judgment dated 10.3.2008 in Crl.A.No.517 of 2006 of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against her in the above case and she is set at liberty. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the judgments of the courts below, the revision petitioner was arrested and now she is undergoing imprisonment in the Women's Prison, Attakulangara, Trivandrum and she may be ordered to be released in the light of the acquittal recorded by this Court. 5. In the light of the order passed by this Court acquitting the revision petitioner/accused, she is entitled to get released Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 2011 -:3:- from jail forthwith in case she is not required in any other case. Therefore, the Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Women's Prison, Attakulangara, Trivandrum . The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 2011 -:4:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No.11028 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 3050 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011 ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The dispute is the subject matter of the Crl.R.P. In the petition, it is stated that during the pendency of the cases, the entire matter was settled and the first respondent/complainant has received the entire amount covered by the cheque in dispute. The first respondent/complainant does not intend to prosecute the matter any further. 2. I have gone through the compounding petition and I am satisfied with the terms and conditions incorporated therein and the petition is signed by both the revision petitioner and the first respondent/complainant and countersigned by their respective counsel. Considering the particular facts and circumstances involved in the case, especially, in the light of the discretion granted Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 2011 -:5:- to this Court by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457], the revision petitioner was permitted to file the compounding petition depositing a sum of `.7500/-, as per order dated 22.12.2011 so as to enable her to move this Court to compound the offence for which she is convicted and sentenced. The revision petitioner has paid a sum of `.7500/- to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No. 494 dated 22.12.2011 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. As I am satisfied with the terms and the averments contained in the compounding petition, which is signed by the revision petitioner as well as the first respondent and countersigned by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition is recorded. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 2011 -:6:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.M.A.No.7087 of 2010 in Unnumbered Crl.R.P.No. of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This is an application to condone the delay of 1735 days occurred in filing the Crl.R.P. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman and after the impugned judgment, the matter has been settled out of court and a Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 2011 -:7:- compounding petition has also been filed along with the revision petition and there is no contention on merit. 3. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, especially when the contesting parties settled the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to settle the matter and to redress his grievance. In the result, the delay of 1735 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition is condoned and the Registry is directed to number the Crl.R.P. V.K.Mohanan, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 2011 -:8:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ----------------------------------- - Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 2011 -:9:- J U D G M E N T DATED: -2-2010 Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 2011 -:10:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 2011 -:11:- Dated:.. V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 2011 -:12:- Dated:..