IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2280 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.283/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-III, KOZHIKODE ST.84/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (MARAD CASES)KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- UDAYAKUMAR,AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, SREENILAYAM, CHERUVALATH, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O. KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE -------------------------------------- 1. PRASHOB KUMAR, S/O. PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, THARAMMAL HOUSE, NRAR S.K. TEMPLE, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SMT.T.KAMALA MENON FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2280 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode in Crl.Appeal No.283 of 2007 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). 2. Petitioner and respondent No.1 filed Crl.M.A.No.8001 of 2009 reporting settlement and seeking permission to compound the offence. 3. It is seen from Crl.M.A.No.8001 of 2009 that parties have settled the dispute out of court. There is no reason to think that the composition is not voluntary. Offence under Section 138 of the Act is made compoundable under Section 147 of the Act. Hence permission is granted and Crl.M.A.No.8001 of 2009 is allowed. The composition entered between petitioner and respondent No.1 is accepted and that shall have the effect of acquittal of petitioner under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. It is submitted by counsel on both sides that petitioner has deposited Rs.12,000/- in the trial court pursuant to the order of the appellate court and as per the settlement that amount should go to respondent No.1. Petitioner has no objection in respondent No.1 withdrawing that amount. Hence Crl.R.P.No.2280/2009 2 it is directed that amount if any deposited by the petitioner in the trial court pursuant to the order of the appellate court can be withdrawn by respondent No.1. Revision Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks