IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 985 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.303/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.692/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- MUNEER.P.M,AGED 38 YEARS,S/O.MUTHU, PULICHARAMVEETTIL HOUSE,P.O.ELAVALLY SOUTH(VIA), CHITTATTUKKARA,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S SUBITHA LEASING CO.(P)LTD., KUNNAMKULAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN GANGADHARAN NAIR,S/O.PADAPARAMBIL RAVUNNI, CHIRAMANGAD VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.V.JOY FOR R2 SRI.V.V.JOY FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SUMANGALA.P.N THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.985 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th Day of April , 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. 3229/2011, 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 320(8) of Cr.P.C. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 31.03.2006 in C.C.No.692 of 2006 of Crl. R.P. No.985 OF 2011 2 the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad and the judgment dated 31.12.2008 in Crl.A.No.303/2006 of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Thrissur 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 pm/- Crl. R.P. No.985 OF 2011 3 V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No. 3229 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No.985 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 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 during the pendency of the cases, the entire matter was settled out of court and the 2nd respondent/complainant has received the entire amount covered by the cheque in dispute. The 2nd respondent/complainant 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 incorporated therein and the petition is signed by both the revision petitioner and the 2nd 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 Crl. R.P. No.985 OF 2011 4 in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457], the revision petitioner was permitted to file the compounding petition depositing a sum of Rs.1,400/-, as per order dated 04.04.2011 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 Rs.1,400/- being the cost to the the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.282 dated 05.04.2011 in terms of the direction issued by this 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 2nd respondent and countersigned by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition is recorded. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/-