IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 960 of 2002(C) ------------------------------------------ CRL.A.NO.141/1999 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM, CC.NO.608/1996 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KANJIRAPPALLY. .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------- SURESHKUMAR P.B., PUTHIYAPARAMBIL, CHIRAKKADAVU EAST P.O. BY ADVS. MR.MATHEW JOHN, MR.BABY THOMAS. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & NOT PARTY: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSEPH ABRAHAM, KARIANATTU VEEDU, PAZHAYIDAM KARA, MANIMALA VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.M. KAMMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P. NO. 960/2002-C: O R D E R counsel for the revision petitioner absent. Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. 06/11/2009. SD/- P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. ORDER ON CRL.M.P. NO. 5240/2002 IN CRL.R.P. NO. 960/2002 DISMISSED 06/11/2009. SD/- P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.960 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.608/1996 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kanjirappally and appellant in Crl.Appeal No.141/1999 of Additional Sessions court, Kottayam. He was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 60,000/- , in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Out of the fine amount realised, Rs. 50,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. On appeal by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and the substantive portion of the sentence. But, instead of imposing fine , the accused was directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. The accused has now come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 2. When the Criminal Revision Petition came up for hearing today, both the parties filed Crl.M.11589/2009 seeking permission to Crl.R.P.No.960/2002 2 compound the offence which was allowed by me. As the offence is compounded, the revision petition has to be allowed and the accused has to be acquitted. In the result, as the offence is compounded, revision petition is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal are set aside. Accused is acquitted under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds are cancelled. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.R.P.No.960/2002 2