IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 423 of 2005() ----------------------------- CRA.6/2004 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.359/2000 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- P.T.ANTONY, PONNAKERIL HOUSE, OLAVAIPU P.O., POOCHAKKAL, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.JOHN VIPIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------- 1. T.O.JOSEPH, THEKKENIKARTHIL, THURUTHIL TEMPLE ROAD, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.T.JOSE FOR R1 P.P. SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 423 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009 O R D E R The accused in C.C. No.359/2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below. 2. Pending this revision, the parties have settled the matter. Crl. M.A. No. 2258 of 2009 has been filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 seeking permission to record the composition entered into between the revision petitioner and the complainant. The said petition has been signed by both the revision petitioner as well as the complainant and their respective counsels. In the light of this development, the aforementioned composition is recorded and it will have the effect of an acquittal of the revision petitioner within the meaning of Sec. 320 (8) Cr.P.C. Money, if any, deposited by the revision petitioner pursuant to the orders, if any, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to the revision petitioner/accused. This Crl. R.P. is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.