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. 830 of 2011() ------------------------------------- (CRA.430/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.940/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, CHERTHALA) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- SIVAN,AGED 54 YEARS,S/O.CHELLAPPA PANICKER,CHANIVELI,CMC -8, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA PO, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.VISHNURAJ SUGATHAN. RESPONDENTS(S): RESPONDENT/CLAIAMANT -------------------------- 1. N.DINESAN,CMC -8,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 561. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.VINEETHA B. FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN FOR R2. 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. 830 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. 2702/2011, 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 Crl.R.P.No.830 of 2010 -: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 19.6.2007 in C.C.No.940 of 2005 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala and the judgment dated 11.6.2008 in Crl.A.No.430 of 2007 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Alappuzha 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.830 of 2010 -:3:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No. 2702 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 830 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 the matter has been settled between the revision petitioner and the first respondent and the entire cheque amount has been received by the first respondent and the first respondent has no intention to proceed with the case against the revision petitioner as the matter has been settled between the parties. The first respondent does not intend to prosecute the matter any further. Crl.R.P.No.830 of 2010 -:4:- 2. I have gone through the compounding petition 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.1000/-, as per order dated 15.3.2011 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.1000/- to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.265 dated 18.3.2011 in Crl.R.P.No.830 of 2010 -:5:- terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. As I am 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.830 of 2010 -: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.830 of 2010 -: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.830 of 2010 -:8:-