IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 254 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- CRA.NO.821/2007 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.NO.219/04 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, KOTTAYAM. ...... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES MATHEW, KUNNUMMEL HOUSE, AYARKKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.N.KARUNAKARAN, VALIYA VEETTIL, AMAYANNOOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI. JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.254 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 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 have 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.1316/2011, 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 stipulated in the decision of the Apex Court 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 Crl.R.PNo.254 of 2009 -:2:- terms of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 31.10.2007 in C.C.No.219 of 2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam and the judgment dated 30.9.2008 in Crl.A.No. 821 of 2007 of the court of Addl.Sessions Judge, Kottayam Division 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 MBS/ Crl.R.PNo.254 of 2009 -:3:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No.1316 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 254 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to compound the offence. The dispute is the subject matter of the Crl.R.P. The offence is under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. In the petition, it is stated that the matter has been settled out of court and the first respondent/complainant has received full amount to his satisfaction from the revision petitioner and the first respondent/complainant does not want to continue the prosecution. The revision petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.4050/- being 15% of the cheque amount to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.221 dated 2.2.2011 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457]. As I am satisfied with the terms Crl.R.PNo.254 of 2009 -:4:- 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 of the said offence is recorded. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE MBS/ Crl.R.PNo.254 of 2009 -:5:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..