IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1801 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CRA.783/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.3032/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :- ------------------------------------------------------------------ P.RAJAN, RAJA AUTO CONSULTANT, M A K BUILDING NOORANI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SULAIMAN, S/O.MOHAMMED ALI KALATHINGAL HOUSE, OLD LAKKIDI, PALAKKAD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V.TEK CHAND FOR R1 MR.K.K.DHEERENDRA KRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------- Crl.M.A.No.8175 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No.1801 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September 2010 O R D E R Crl.M.A.No.8175 of 2010 This is a petition filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to compound the offence. The dispute is the subject matter of the Crl.R.P. The offence is under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. In the petition, it is stated that the matter has been settled out of court and the revision petitioner paid entire cheque amount to the respondent/complainant and the entire matter was settled between the parties and the respondent/complainant is not having any further grievance against the revision petitioner. 2. The revision petitioner was permitted to file the compounding petition on producing the receipt showing the Crl.M.A.No.8175 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No.1801 of 2010 -: 2 :- remittance of Rs.3,500/- in the KELSA, in the light of the discretion granted to this court by the Apex court in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457]. The revision petitioner has already paid the above amount to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, and the receipt vide No.100 dated 20.8.2010 is produced. 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 2nd respondent and countersigned by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition is recorded. Crl.R.P.No.1801 of 2010 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 Crl.M.A.No.8175 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No.1801 of 2010 -: 3 :- sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No.8175/10, 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 guidelines issued by the Apex Court 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. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 18.11.2008 in S.T.No.3032/2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad and the judgment dated 23.12.2009 in Crl.A.No.783/2008 of the court of Sessions Judge, Palakkad Division and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the Crl.M.A.No.8175 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No.1801 of 2010 -: 4 :- 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. Jvt