IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1240 of 2001() ------------------------------ CRA.335/2001 of VI th ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.605/1999 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (ECONOMIC OFFENCES),ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- CHAVARA GOPALAKRISHNAN, 111/9, C.I.F.T, STAFF QUARTERS, CHAKKALAKAL ROAD, KOCHI-15. BY ADV. SRI.ARUN VALENCHERY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. T.C.GEORGE, THEKKUMCHERIYIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.14/1079, CHANDRATHIL ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUALM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN ADV. SRI.MATHEW SKARIA SRI.SUJESH J.MATHEW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1240 of 2001 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.605 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The first respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate, after due trial, found the revision petitioner guilty. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.90,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months more. If the fine amount is realised, Rs.85,000/- was ordered to be given to the first respondent as cost and compensation under section 357(1) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. The learned IV th Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, in appeal, confirmed the above conviction and sentence. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition was filed. Today, when the revision petition came up for hearing the revision petitioner and the first respondent jointly filed a petition Crl.R.P.No.1240 of 2001 2 as Crl.M.Appl.No.9793 of 2009 seeking permission for compounding the offence. Having heard either side and the learned public prosecutor, I find no reason to reject the petition. In the above circumstances the petition Crl.M.Appl.No.9793 of 2009 is recorded and the revision petitioner is acquitted U/s.147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act r/w section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is set at liberty. Revision petition is disposed as above. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.