IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRRP.No. 2804 of 2011 ( ) ========================= CRA.527/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM CC.940/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ....... REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT-ACCUSED ========================================== R.RAJARAM,TRADESMAN,EMDEACm VCR, VSSC, ISRO.P.O THIRUVANANTHAUPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR, SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS-STATE & COMPLAINANT ================================================== 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.MANIKANTAN NAIR,SENIOR TECHNICIAN, CODE NO.23432, IEDAUM,VCR, VSSC,ISRO.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRRP.NO.2804/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.A: COPY OF COMPROMISE PETITION, CMP NO.1443 OF 2010 FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND THE ACCUSED IN CRL.A.NO.527/2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACT COURT III), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEX.B: COPY OF COMPROMISE PETITION, CMP NO.1444 OF 2010 FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND THE ACCUSED IN CRL.A.NO.527/2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT III), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2804 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 O R D E R Challenge in the revision is against the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 {for short 'the Act'} , concurrently by the two courts below. 2. When the revision came up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the amount awarded as compensation had been paid to the complainant during the pendency of the appeal before the Sessions Judge. So much so, modification of the conviction, taking note of the payment and recording the same alone is sought for in the revision. Petitioner was directed to secure the presence of the complainant, to verify the correctness of the submission made. Crl.R.P.No.2804 of 2011 :: 2 :: 3. Notice ordered to the complainant was returned unserved. Still, one more opportunity was extended to the petitioner to secure the presence of the complainant. Still, his presence has not been secured. 4. In the circumstances, leaving the petitioner to pursue his recording of the payment, if any, made securing the presence of the complainant before the magistrate, the revision is only to be dismissed, as no challenge against the conviction and also the sentence is sought to be assailed in this revision. Revision is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.