IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 910 of 2001() ----------------------------- C.C.No.65 of 1994 of the JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE-III, NEYYATTINKARA CRA.152/1995 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- --------------------- S.K.JOY, PLAVILA VEEDU, VENNIYOOR, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:- --------------- 1. K.G.JAYAN, S/O.GOPALAN, VADAKKUMKARA THERIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THANNIMOODU P.O., BALARAMAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ` P.P. SRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Crl.R.P. No. 910 of 2001 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 O R D E R Revision petitioner is accused in C.C.No.65 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Neyyattinkara and appellant in Crl.A.No.152 of 1995 on the file of the First Addl. Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. He was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month by the trial court by judgment dated April 26, 1995. On appeal by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated June 30, 2001 confirmed the conviction of the revision petitioner under section 138 of the Act, but modified the substantive sentence to simple imprisonment for one month and retained the order to pay the compensation and the default sentence. Now the accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. Crl.R.P.910/2001 2 2. The case of the first respondent/complainant, as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint was that the accused borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the complainant and to discharge that debt the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated December 23, 1993 which when presented for collection was returned dishonoured for want of sufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner in the bank and that in spite of notice Ext.P3 dated January 3, 1994 the accused did not repay the amount. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the trial court under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and took cognizance of the offence. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the prosecution. When the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate, he stated that he lost a cheque, which was misused by the complainant and created Crl.R.P.910/2001 3 Ext.P1. Dws.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.D1 to D4 were marked on the side of the accused. 4. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid. On appeal by the accused, the lower appellate court reduced the substantive sentence to simple imprisonment for one month but retained the order to pay compensation and the default sentence. The complainant has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 5. When the revision petition came up for hearing today, it is brought to my notice that the matter has been settled and a compromise petition was filed before the lower appellate court as Crl.M.P. No.2780/2001. A copy of the said petition was produced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court. The records of the lower appellate court were called for and on verification of those records, the above facts were found to be correct. The learned counsel for the revision Crl.R.P.910/2001 4 petitioner also produced a copy of the receipt for having paid the entire cheque amount to the complainant. Though notice was received by the 1st respondent/complainant, he did not appear. Therefore, the petition seeking permission to compound the offence is allowed and the offence is compounded. That being so, the revision petition has to be allowed and the accused has to be acquitted. 6. In the result, as the offence is compounded, the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner/accused by the trial court which were confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court are set aside and the revision petitioner/accused is acquitted under section 320 Cr.P.C.. His bail bonds are cancelled. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn Crl.R.P.910/2001 5 P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Crl.R.P. No. 910 of 2001 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ O R D E R 21-1-2011