IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2592 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.NO.558/2006 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.379/2004 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------- SASI KUMAR, MADHU VIHAR HOUSE, MAYYANADU P.O., KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SASI KUMAR.M.R., MULAMTHANATHU HOUSE, CHANNANIKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 011. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SUMANGALA P.N. R2 BY ADV. SRI. BABY THOMAS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No.8219 of 2010 in Crl. M.A.No.7953 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No.2592 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010. ORDER 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 by the parties and the respondent/ complainant is not having any further complaint against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner was permitted to file the compounding petition on producing the receipt showing the remittance of Rs.1,500/- 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.103 dated Crl. M.A.No.8219 of 2010 in Crl. M.A.No.7953 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No.2592 of 2010 2 31.8.2010 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 second respondent and countersigned by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition is recorded. Crl.R.P.No.2592 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 sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl. M.A.No.8219 of 2010 in Crl. M.A.No.7953 of 2010, 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 Crl. M.A.No.8219 of 2010 in Crl. M.A.No.7953 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No.2592 of 2010 3 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. 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 18.8.2006 in C.C.No.379 of 2004 the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottayam, and the judgment dated 13.9.2007 in Crl.A.No.558/2006 of the court of Sessions, Kottayam Division and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the 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. ami/