IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3090 of 2009 & CRL.R.C.18/2009() -------------------------------------------------------- CRA.1022/2006 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.279/2005 of .................................................................................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K. SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, VASANTHA PHOTOS AND VIDEOS, OPPOSITE OF K.S.R.T.C CENTRAL WORKS, PAPPANAMCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1.V. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O. VELU PILLAI, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, PAPPANAMCODE ESTATE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ADV. SRI.V.R.GOPU FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.T.DEVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2009, ALONG WITH CRRC NO.18 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No. 3090 of 2009 & Crl.R.C. 18/2009 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.279/2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class – IV, Neyyattinkara. He was prosecuted by the first respondent alleging offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The learned Magistrate, after trial arrived a finding of guilty. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted for offence Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months with direction to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation. In Crl. Appeal No.1022/2006, the conviction was confirmed, but the sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.70,000/-. 3. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of Crl. R.P. No.3090/2009 2 the above conviction and sentence, the revision petition was filed by the accused. When the revision petition came up for hearing, it was brought to the notice that the sentence and default sentence imposed by the appellate Court is not justified. Hence, the suo motu revision case was registered. 4. The revision petitioner, who is the respondent in the revision case along with first respondent in the revision petition settled the matter out of court and executed a statement to that effect which is produced as Annexure – A1. The counsel appearing for either side filed a petition as Criminal M.A.No.9933/2009, seeking an order to accord sanction to compound the offence. Having heard either side, I find no reason to reject the petition. In the above circumstance, the Criminal M.A.No.9933/2009 is recorded and the revision petitioner would stand acquitted under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and set at liberty. Crl. R.P. No.3090/2009 3 The revision petition and the revision case are disposed of accordingly. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE ss