IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2730 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.258/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-1), THODUPUZHA CC.237/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADIMALI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- BIJU KUMAR, S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 38 YEARS, PELLATHUPUTHEN VEEDU, KUNNATHOOR KARA, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ISSAC THOMAS, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, KAKKUDIYIL HOUSE, ADIMALY KARA, MUNNAMKANDAM VILLAGE. IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SUMANGALA P.N. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.2730 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 22nd Day of September, 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. 8664/2010, 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) SC 457]. In the light CRMA 2730/10 -:2:- 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 10.8.2005 in C.C.No.237 of 2002 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly and the judgment dated 21.6.2006 in Crl.A.No.345 of 2003 of the court of Addl.District & Sessions Judge(Adhoc-1), Thodupuzha 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/- CRMA 2730/10 -:3:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No. 7088 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No. 2242 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010. 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 during the pendency of the cases, the entire matter was settled and the petitioner/first respondent has received the entire amount covered by the cheque in dispute. The petitioner/first respondent does not intend to prosecute the petitioner/revision petitioner any further in the matter. 2. I have gone through the compounding petition and I am satisfied with the terms and conditions CRMA 2730/10 -:4:- incorporated therein and the petition is signed by both the revision petitioner and the first respondent/ complainant and countersigned by their respective counsel. As the revision petitioner is an and 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 compounding petition depositing 1% of the cheque amount, as per order dated 19.7.2010 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 Rs.4000/- being 1% of the cheque amount to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.074 dated 23.7.2010 in terms of the decision of the CRMA 2730/10 -:5:- 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 first respondent and countersigned by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition is recorded. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRMA 2730/10 -:6:- 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 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. CRMA 2730/10 -:7:- 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/ CRMA 2730/10 -:8:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ---------------------------- -------- J U D G M E N T CRMA 2730/10 -:9:- DATED: -2- 2010 CRMA 2730/10 -:10:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:.. V.K.MOHANAN, J. CRMA 2730/10 -:11:- 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 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 CRMA 2730/10 -:12:- 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 kvm/- CRMA 2730/10 -:13:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..