IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER, 2011 / 20TH ASWINA, 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1981 of 2011 ------------------------------------- (CRA.708/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK COURT NO.I), THRISSUR ST.3789/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------- RAJAN, PROPRIETOR, RAJ AGENCIES, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD JUNCTION, CHERUPLASSERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENTS(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. K.T.SHAJI, ESSJEE & COMPANY, ESJEE COMPLEX, VADAKKE BUS STAND, THRISSUR- 680020, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SAJI P.JOHN. R2 BY ADV.SMT.LALIZA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1981 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011 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. 8573/2011, 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 Section Crl.R.P.No.1981 of 2011 -:2:- 320(8) of Cr.P.C. 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 17.10.2008 in S.T.No.3789 of 2005 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur and the judgment dated 13.1.2011 in Crl.A.No.708 of 2008 of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Thrissur and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against him in the above case and he is set at liberty. 4. In Crl.M.A.No.8573 of 2011, it is stated that as per the settlement, the petitioner had paid a total amount of `.67,500/- to the second respondent and the second respondent had acknowledged the receipt of the same as the full and final satisfaction of the claim against the petitioner and the petitioner had also agreed that the second respondent can withdraw an amount of `.16,000/- deposited before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur in S.T.No.3789 of 2005 in Crl.R.P.No.1981 of 2011 -:3:- pursuance of the order dated 23.10.2008 of the District and Sessions Judge in Crl.M.A.No.4024 of 2008 in Crl.A.No.708 of 2008. As the compounding petition is allowed, it is only just and proper to provide appropriate provision in this order to materialise the terms of composition. Accordingly, the second respondent is permitted to withdraw the above amount of `.16,000/- from the J.F.C.M.Court-II, Thrissur, which is already deposited in pursuance of the order of the appellate court, as indicated above. Therefore, the trial court is directed to release the above amount of `.16,000/- in favour of the second respondent/accused on an application moved in this regard. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.1981 of 2011 -:4:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.A.No. 8573 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 1981 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 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 subsequent to the filing of the revision petition, the petitioner and the second respondent have arrived into a settlement and as per the settlement, the petitioner had totally paid an amount of `.67,500/- to the second respondent and the second respondent had acknowledged the receipt of the same as the full and final satisfaction of the claim against the petitioner. Crl.R.P.No.1981 of 2011 -:5:- The petitioner had also agreed that the second respondent can withdraw an amount of `.16,000/- deposited before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur in S.T.No.3789 of 2005 in pursuance of the order dated 23.10.2008 of the District and Sessions Judge in Crl.M.A.No.4024 of 2008 in Crl.A.No.708 of 2008. 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 second 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 Crl.R.P.No.1981 of 2011 -:6:- compounding petition depositing 5% of the cheque amount, i.e., `.4602/- as per order dated 29.9.2011 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 `.4602/- being 5% of the cheque amount to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.425 dated 4.10.2011 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. 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 second respondent and countersigned by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition is recorded. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.1981 of 2011 -:7:- 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 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 Crl.R.P.No.1981 of 2011 -:8:- 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, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.1981 of 2011 -:9:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ----------------------------------- - Crl.R.P.No.1981 of 2011 -:10:- J U D G M E N T DATED: -2-2010 Crl.R.P.No.1981 of 2011 -:11:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. Crl.R.P.No.1981 of 2011 -:12:- JUDGMENT Dated:.. V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Crl.R.P.No.1981 of 2011 -:13:- Dated:..