IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 47 of 2004(A) --------------------------------------- (CRA.26/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.180/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED. ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAYA REJI, W/O.REJI, VALLYARA, THIRUVARPPU P.O. KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.R.THANKACHAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KUMMINIPATHIL, PULIKKUTTYSSERI P.O. VALLYADU, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHANAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Dismissed for default. Bail Order cancelled. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. // True copy // P.A. to Judge. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.47 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated 23rd Day of March, 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. 2637/2011, 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. 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 28.12.2001 in C.C.No.180 of 2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam and the judgment dated 3.10.2003 in Crl.A.No.262002 of the Sessions Judge, Kottayam and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges CRRP 47/04 :-2-: levelled against him in the above case and he is set at liberty. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRRP 47/04 :-3-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No. 2637 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No.47 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd March, 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 and the first respondent/complainant has received the entire amount covered by the cheque in dispute. The first 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 first 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 CRRP 47/04 :-4-: to this Court by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457], the revision petitioner was permitted to file the compounding petition depositing Rs.2000/- being the cost in the KELSA as per order dated 15.3.2011 so as to enable him to move this Court to compound the offence for which he is convicted and sentenced. 3. The revision petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.2000/- being cost to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.258 dated 15.3.2011 in terms of the decision of the Supreme 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 first respondent and countersigned by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition is recorded. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRRP 47/04 :-5-: