IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2795 OF 2009() --------------------------------------------- CRA.646/2005 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURTS (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.1172/2009 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) - APPELLANT - ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- SAILENDRAN, MUZHIYATHU VEEDU, KOTTAKAKOM, KOTTARKAVU MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENTS - STATE & COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K. SUKUMARAN, KOCHUMADATHIL PADEETTATHIL, PRAYIKKARA, MAVELIKKARA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN ADV. SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2795 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc), Mavelikkara in Crl. Appeal No.646 of 2005 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). 2. Petitioner and respondent No.2 filed Crl.M.A No.8569 of 2009 reporting settlement and seeking permission to compound the offence. 3. It is seen from application No.8569 of 2009 that parties have settled the dispute out of court. There is no reason to think that the composition is not voluntary. Offence under Section 138 of the Act is made compoundable under Section 147 of the Act. Hence permission is granted and Crl.M.A. No.8569 of 2009 is allowed. The composition entered between petitioner and respondent No.2 is accepted and that shall have the effect of acquittal of the petitioner under Section 320(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv