IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 585 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRA.224/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.12/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AMABALAPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------- BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 74 YEARS, EDAYILE VEEDU, CHEPPADU PANCHAYATH WARD NO.3, CHEPPADU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT --------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P.NO. 585/2007 : 2 : ORDER ON Crl.M.A. NO. 1710/2007 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 585/2007 DISMISSED 08.08.2008 sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 585 of 2007 ========================== Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008. ORDER The revision petitioner was the 1st accused in C.C. No. 12 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ambalapuzha for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 467 r/w Section 34 IPC. He alone stood trial before the Magistrate. After trial, he was convicted of both the offences and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months for each of the offences. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha as Crl. Appeal No. 224 of 2006, the said conviction and sentences were confirmed. Hence this revision. 2. Merely because Ext.P4 cheque was dishonoured for the reason that the signatures of the revision petitioner differed, it cannot be concluded that the revision petitioner had committed the offence of forgery of a valuable security under Section 467 IPC. If at all, what is discernible is an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Accordingly, the conviction recorded against CRL.R.P. NO. 585/2007 : 2: the revision petitioner under Section 467 IPC is dislodged and the revision petitioner is acquitted of the same. 3. As for the surviving offence under Section 420 IPC, both the complainant as well as the revision petitioner have jointly filed Crl. M.A. No. 7471 of 2008 under Section 320(6) Cr.P.C to the effect that the matter has been settled between them and that the complainant does not have any subsisting grievance in the matter. The composition so far as the offence under Section 420 IPC is confirmed, is recorded. It will have the effect of an acquittal of the revision petitioner under Section 420 IPC, in view of Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 585/2007 : 3: