IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2914 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.241/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY STC.63/2004 of CHIEF JUDITIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL SATHAR.C, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 33 YEARS, HASEENA MANZIL,NARAYANPARA, PO ULIYI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN, SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.K.SUDHEESH,S/O.KARUNAN,CHEMBILODE, THALASSERY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADV. SMT.RUKHIYABI MOHD. KUNHI R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SUMANGALA P.N. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.2914 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 6th day of October, 2010 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. 9285/2010, 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 guideline issued by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) CRL.R.P 2914/10 -:2:- 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 7.3.2005 in STC.No.63 of 2004 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery and the judgment dated 24.12..2008 in Crl.A.No.241 of 2005 of the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Adhoc-III, Thalassery 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 kvm/- CRL.R.P 2914/10 -:3:- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- 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 CRL.R.P 2914/10 -:4:- after the impugned 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 2914/10 -:5:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF CRL.R.P 2914/10 -:6:- 200 ---------------------------- -------- J U D G M E N T DATED: -2- 2010 CRL.R.P 2914/10 -:7:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT CRL.R.P 2914/10 -:8:- Dated:.. V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:.. This Crl.Revision Petition is preferred by the sole accused in C.C.No..... on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, ... and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No..... of the Addl.Sessions Judge, ......... The revision petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The cheque in question involved is for an amount CRL.R.P 2914/10 -:9:- of Rs.......This Court passed an order today allowing the compounding petition filed by the revision petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent, countersigned by their respective counsels. In the light of the fact that the offence has been compounded by the parties to the dispute, I am of the view that this Crl.Revision Petition can be allowed setting aside the judgments of the courts below. In the result, this Crl.R.P is allowed setting aside the judgment dated ...... in ..... of the JFCM-II, ...... and the judgment dated in Crl.A.No...... of the Addl. Sessions Judge, ...... Court-II, Alappuzha and acquitting the accused. The Crl.R.P is allowed as above. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE CRL.R.P 2914/10 -:10:- kvm/- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT CRL.R.P 2914/10 -:11:- Dated:.. V.K.MOHANAN, J. CRL.R.P 2914/10 -:12:-