IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3401 of 2008() ----------------------------------------- CRA.347/2006 OF ADDL. DIST & SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM ST.564/2004 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- THAHIRA, D/O.BHEEMA, ALUVILAKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, T.C. 20/2118, NEAR MARKET JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/LEGAL HEIR OF COMPLAINANT AND STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHELLAMMA, W/O.G.KRISHNANKUTTY, KRISHNAMANGALAM VEEDU, VALIYAMUDUMBU, SREEVARAHAM WARD, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU FOR R2 ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3401 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. 564 of 2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thiruvananthapuram and the appellant in Crl. Appeal 347 of 2006. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal 347 of 2006 does not reveal that complainant/second respondent in the appeal died during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as if second respondent was alive. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. In the appeal, revision petitioner impleaded first respondent as the widow of the deceased complainant stating that on the death of the complainant she is the legal heir. 2. Crl.M.A.10295 of 2008 is filed by first respondent along with revision petition for permission to compound the offence under section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As the factum of death of the original complainant is not seen in the judgment of the Appellate Court and it was represented that CRRP3401/08 2 before the Appellate Court first respondent had filed an application to get herself impleaded, the records in Crl. Appeal. 347 of 2006 were called for. Records of the appeal show that during the pendency of the appeal, the original complainant died and Crl.M.P. 3532 of 2006 was filed by first respondent, herein along with death certificate of the deceased complainant to get herself impleaded as additional respondent in the appeal. But no order is seen passed in that application. It is seen that when revision petitioner filed an application Crl.M.P.211 of 2008, to send the dishonoured cheque to Forensic Science Laboratory, an objection was filed by first respondent herein as the widow of the deceased complainant opposing the application. An order in Crl.M.P.211 of 2008 dated 5.4.2008 was passed. Paragraph 4 of the order reads: “The original complainant died and his wife was impleaded as his legal heir”. Therefore though no formal order was passed in Crl. M.P.3532 of 2006, the order shows that widow of deceased complainant was impleaded. In such circumstances, being the widow and legal heir of the original complainant, first respondent herein is entitled to compound the offence as provided under section 147 CRRP3401/08 3 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As first respondent filed an application with petitioner stating that they have settled the dispute with the revision petitioner and sought permission to compound the offence, permission is granted to compound the offence. Offence is compounded. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-