IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3640 OF 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/03/2008 IN CRMP. 1957 /2007 IN CRA.758/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE ST.217/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, THAMARASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- STANLY K.PAULOSE, S/O.PAULOSE, AGED 39, KUNNUMPURAM HOUSE, THOTTUMUKKOM POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER IBRAHIM RESPONDENT(S): IST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------- 1. BIJU MATTATHIL, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, MATTATHIL HOUSE, MUNDOOR P.O., KODANCHERY VIA., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZER FOR R2 SRI.T.K.BIJU FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3640 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.217 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thamarassery. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Crl.Appeal 758 of 2007. The appeal was filed with a petition to condone the delay. Though petitioner was directed to deposit an amount to condone the delay, it was not deposited and consequently the application was dismissed. Consequently the appeal was also dismissed. Revision is filed challenging the same. Along with the revision, revision petitioner produced a receipt issued by the first respondent for payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. 2. Crl.M.A.11088 of 2008 is filed to receive the compromise petition entered into by first respondent and revision petitioner stating that they have settled the dispute and CRRP3640/08 2 first respondent has received the entire amount due under the cheque and therefore first respondent has no objection for allowing the revision. Learned counsel appearing for first respondent also submitted that the matter has been settled and first respondent has compounded the offence with the revision petitioner. Hence the permission is granted to compound the offence. Offence is compounded. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-