IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2775 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.780/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.424/2003 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- A.P.PRABHAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, KRISHNA NIVAS, EDANOOR, KURICHIYIL PO, THALASSERI. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. T.T.P.ABDUL NAZAR, S/O.KVP.AMEER ALI UDUMBUTHALA HOUSE, TOWN HALL ROAD, THALASSERY,. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.K.MOIDEEN FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2775 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery in Crl.Appeal No.780 of 2003 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.8500 of 2009 reporting settlement and seeking permission to compound the offence. 3. It is seen from Crl.M.A.No.8500 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.8500 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 for petitioner that petitioner has deposited Rs.10,000/- in the trial court pursuant to the order of the appellate court. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be permitted to withdraw that amount. Counsel for respondent No.1 has no objection in petitioner withdrawing Crl.R.P.No.2775/2009 2 the said amount. Accordingly it is directed that the amount if any deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order of the appellate court shall be returned to him on application. Revision Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks