IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH, 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3475 of 2010 ------------------------------------- REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------- K.P.SHBEEB, S/O. ABDULLA KOYA, AGED 39 YEARS, BAITHUL NOOR, MARUTHAMOOLI PARAMBA, PAYYANAKKAL.P.O., KALLAI, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH RESPONDENTS(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------- 1. MAHESWARI FINANCE & INVESTMENTS, III FLOOR, MALABAR GATE, RAM MOHAN ROAD, CALICUT-673004. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.DINESAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 36 YEARS. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010 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. 2807/2011, 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 contesting parties, I am of the view that this Crl. R.P can be allowed, acquitting the accused in terms of Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010 -:2:- Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 11.1.2010 in C.C.No.363 of 2008 of the court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Marad Cases), Kozhikode and the judgment dated 6.10.2010 in Crl.A.No.61 of 2010 of the court of the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode Division and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against him in the above case and he is set at liberty. There will be a direction to the trial court, in terms of the clause of the compounding petition, that a sum of `.50,000/-, which is already deposited by the revision petitioner/accused in terms of the order passed by the appellate court while suspending the execution of sentence, shall be released in favour of the first respondent/complainant on his application in this regard. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. MBS/ V.K.MOHANAN, Judge Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010 -:3:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No. 2807 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th 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 due to the financial crisis of the revision petitioner, some of the mediators mediated the matter with the first respondent/complainant and amicably settled the entire dispute by paying `.1,50,000/-. It is also stated that an amount of `.1,00,000/- has been paid to the complainant directly and a direction may be given to the trial court that an amount of `.50,000/-, which is deposited in the appellate court by the revision petitioner, is to be released in favour of the first respondent/complainant on an application in this regard. Crl.R.P.No. 3475 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.20,000/- as per order dated 16.3.2011 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.20,000/- to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.269 dated 21.3.2011 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. As I am satisfied with the terms and the averments contained in Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010 -:5:- 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. There will be a direction to the trial court, in terms of the clause of the compounding petition, that a sum of `.50,000/-, which is already deposited by the revision petitioner/accused in terms of the order passed by the appellate court while suspending the execution of sentence, shall be released in favour of the first respondent/complainant on his application in this regard. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE MBS/ Crl.R.P.No. 3475 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 Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010 -:7:- 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. 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, Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010 -:8:- Judge. MBS/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010 -:9:- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------ ------ J U D G M E N T DATED: -2- 2010 Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010 -:10:- Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010 -:11:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:.. Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010 -:12:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..