IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 778 of 2011 ----------------------------------- CRA.311/2004 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (SPL.COURT), KOTTAYAM CC.496/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------- P.P.RAJESH KUMAR, W/O.A.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BIJUMON RESPONDENTS(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. S.V.PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O.P.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, SREEMANDIRAM, KUZHIMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.DIJI.K.DASAN FOR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN FOR R1. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 778 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 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. 2430/2010, 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 Crl.R.P.No.778 of 2011 -:2:- 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 Cr.P.C. 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 17.5.2004 in C.C.No.496 of 2002 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam and the judgment dated 6.10.2006 in Crl.A.No.311 of 2004 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Spl.), Kottayam 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 MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.778 of 2011 -:3:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No. 2430 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 778 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 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 conciliation talks were going on in the mediation of elders and both the parties have entered into an amicable settlement and now the complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner with respect to the claim made in C.C.No.496 of 2002. The first respondent does not intend to prosecute the matter any further. 2. I have gone through the compounding petition Crl.R.P.No.778 of 2011 -:4:- 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 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 an amount of Rs.1250/-, as per order dated 14.3.2011 so as to enable him to move this Court to compound the offence for which he is convicted and sentenced. The revision petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1250/- to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.201 dated 28.12.2010 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. As I am Crl.R.P.No.778 of 2011 -:5:- 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.778 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 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. Crl.R.P.No.778 of 2011 -:7:- 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.778 of 2011 -:8:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ---------------------------- -------- J U D G M E N T Crl.R.P.No.778 of 2011 -:9:- DATED: -2- 2010 Crl.R.P.No.778 of 2011 -:10:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:.. V.K.MOHANAN, J. Crl.R.P.No.778 of 2011 -:11:- O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..