IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1425 of 2001() ------------------------------ CRA.393/2001 of VI ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.605/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:- --------------------- JIJI, S/O. CHITHAMBHARAN, VELIPARAMBU VEETTIL, MUNDAMVELI DESOM, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI SRI.M.A.ASIF SMT.P.M.INDU SMT.LATHIYA GOPALAN SMT.P.C.JEEVA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- --------------- STATE OF KERALA, (S.I. OF POLICE, THOPPUMPADY POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURTOF KERALA, ERANAKULAM. BY P.P. SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Crl.R.P. No. 1425 of 2001 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C.No.605 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class- II, Kochi and the 1st appellant in Crl.A.No.393 of 2001 on the file of the VI Addl. Sessions Court, Ernakulam. 2. The 1st accused was convicted under section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months more. The 2nd accused was acquitted by the trial court. On appeal by the 1st accused, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed his conviction and sentence. He has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 3. The case of the prosecution was that on February 4, 1998 at about 9 a.m. the 1st accused borrowed a sum of Rs.65,000/- from the de facto complainant (PW1) and to discharge that debt, he issued Ext.P1 cheque on the same Crl.R.P. 1425/2001 2 day, drawn on the Union Bank of India, Mancheri Branch in the account maintained by the 2nd accused making PW1 believe that it was in the account of the 1st accused and that when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned dishonoured for want of sufficiency of funds in the account and also with the endorsement “drawer's signature differs” and that thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under section 420 read with section 34 IPC. 4. The trial court found the 1st accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 420 IPC and he was convicted thereunder and sentenced as aforesaid. The trial court acquitted the 2nd accused. On appeal by the 1st accused, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed his conviction and sentence. 5. When the revision petition came up for hearing today, the revision petitioner/1st accused and the de facto complainant filed a joint petition Crl.M.Appln.No.301 of Crl.R.P. 1425/2001 3 2011 seeking permission to compound the offence. The said application is allowed and the offence is compounded. That being so, the revision petition has to be allowed and the 1st accused has to be acquitted. 6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. As the offence has been compounded, the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner/1st accused rendered by the trial court, which were confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court are set aside and the revision petitioner/1st accused is acquitted under section 320 Cr.P.C.. 7. Rs.5,000/- deposited by the revision petitioner before the trial court shall be refunded to him. His bail bonds are cancelled. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn Crl.R.P. 1425/2001 4 P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Crl.R.P. No. 1425 of 2001 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ O R D E R 18th day of January, 2011