IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST APRIL 2009 / 1ST VAISAKHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1371 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.373/2004 of ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KOLLAM CC.940/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- NOORJAHAN, W/O.SHAMSUDEEN, RAINBOW, PATTALATHUPALLI PURAYIDOM, PATTATHANAM WEST KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. MOLLY, D/O.MEENAKSHY, BHASKARA BHAVANAM, KYALAKKAL, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SMT.M.R.ANUPAMA FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.A.SALIM FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1371 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of April, 2009. ORDER Respondent No.1 appears through counsel. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. Heard counsel on both sides. 2. This revision arises from the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Kollam in Crl.Appeal No.373 of 2004 confirming the conviction and sentence of petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). 3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner and respondent No.1 that the parties have settled the case outside the court and that respondent No.1 has filed Crl.M.P.No.4082 of 2009 seeking permission to compound the offence. 4. It is seen from the petition that the matter has been settled by the parties outside the court and accordingly compounded the matter. Respondent No.1 does not want to further proceed with the matter. Offence under Section 138 of the Act is made compoundable under Section 147 of the Act. On hearing counsel on both sides and going through the petition, I do not find any reason why the request should not be allowed. Crl.R.P.No.1371/2009 2 Resultantly, Crl.M.P.No.4082 of 2009 is allowed and the composition entered between the petitioner and respondent No.1 is accepted. That shall have the effect of acquittal of the petitioner under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks