IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 403 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.136/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM ST.1572/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- A.BAHULAYAN, PUTHUPPARAMPIL HOUSE, ITHITHANAM P.O, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SEBASTIAN JOSEPH, KAIKATHU HOUSE, MALLAPPALLY EAST PO., PATHANAMTHITTA 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHIK FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.403 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.2.2008 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottayam in ST.No.1572/2006 and judgment dated 17.7.2008 in Crl.A.136/2008 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Kottayam.. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he had sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. In appeal, the lower appellate court while confirming the conviction, the sentence was modified and directed the accused to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and further directed him to pay a sum of Rs.41,000/- (Rupees forty one thousand only) to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. It is the above conviction, sentence and order challenged in this revision petition. 2. Today by order in Crl.M.A.No.12121/2001, this court allowed an application filed by the revision petitioner as well as the contesting respondent to compound the offence. In the light of the above order of allowing the parties to compound the 2 offence, I am of the view that this revision petition can be allowed. 3. In the result, this revision petition is allowed, setting aside the judgment of the court below and acquitting the revision petitioner/accused. V.K.Mohanan, Judge cms