IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1000 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.216/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK-1), TRIVANDRUM CC.327/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- SALEEM, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED USMAN (SHABNAS MEDICAL STORE), KATTUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ALAMCODE P.O., ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH CORUT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. KESHAVAN, KESHAVAN NEELAYAM, MANNOM, KIZHUVILAM DESOM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE - 685 561 R1 BY P.P. SMT. REKHA C NAYAR. R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.SAINU & SRI.B.SAINU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.1000 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 11th Day of April , 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. 3282/2011, this court allowed the complainant and the revision petitioner 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 Cr.P.C. 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 16.6.2003 in C.C.No.327 of 1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal and the judgment dated 30.9.2005 in Crl.A.No.216/1999 of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track court-I, Thiruvananthapuram and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against him in the above cases and he is set at liberty. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No.3282 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No.1000 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April 2011. ORDER This is a petition filed by the complainant, who is the 2nd respondent in the above Crl.R.P, 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 affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that during the pendency of the case, the entire matter was settled and the 2nd respondent/complainant has received the entire amount covered by the cheque in dispute. The 2nd respondent/complainant does not intend to prosecute the revision petitioner any further in the matter. 2. I have gone through the petition and I am satisfied with the terms and conditions incorporated in the above affidavit and signed by the counsel for the 2nd respondent. Though the above petition is not a joint petition signed by both the contesting parties, the intention of the parties are manifest from the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent/complainant and from the fact that the amount ordered by this court on 23.3.2011 in unnumbered Crl.R.P of 2011 (ZCRL.R.P.No.216/11) are deposited by the revision petitioner. Therefore, the above petition is allowed under section 147 of the NI Act and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. read with section 482 of Cr.P.C. 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 a sum of Rs.5000/- as per order dated 23.3.2011 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.5000/- being cost to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.281 dated 5.4.2011 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. As I am satisfied with the terms and the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the above petition, which is signed by the counsel for the 2nd respondent, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition of the offence under section 138 of the N.E.Act is recorded. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/-