IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3064 of 2011() -------------------------------------- CRA.27/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, WAYANAD, KALPETTA CC.126/2009 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , KALPETTA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------- MUSTHAFA.A, S/O. POOKER HAJI, AGED 43 YEARS, ARANGODAN HOUSE, NEAR MOSQUE, MUTHAKKARA, KOTTARAKUNNU P.O., PADINJATHARA, WAYANAD DIT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANTS/STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.K.S NAIR, S/O. CHELLAMMA, AGED 61 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, SWARNA SREE MARKETING, SURIYA SREE HOUSE, EDAKUNI, KALPETTA, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYAND DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1ADV. SRI.P.A.SADIQUE R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA.T.Y. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dlk V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3064 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd 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 he is convicted and sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No. 11054/2011, 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) of 2 Crl.R.P.No.3064 of 2011 Cr.P.C. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 23.11.2009 in C.C.No.126 of 2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- Kalpetta, and the judgment dated 9.3.2010 in Crl.A.No.27 of 2010 of the court of the Sessions Judge, Wayanad, Kalpetta, and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against him in the above case and he is set at liberty. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE ami/