IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2755 of 2010(D) -------------------------------------------- [CRL.A.NO.596/2008 OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (AD-HOC NO.II), ERNAKULAM] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- A.P.ALIAS, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.UTHUPPU, AMMINISSERIL HOUSE KAKKAD KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA, SRI.BINU B.SAMUEL. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJI MATHEW,S/O MATHEW, KUDILIL HOUSE, KAJJAD KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA – 686 664. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.2755 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 26th Day of October, 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act and the trial court as well as the lower appellate court have found that the accused is guilty and accordingly he is convicted and sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No. 9367/2010, this court allowed the parties to compound the offence and accordingly, the composition of the said offence is recorded. The revision petitioner has also complied with the condition of paying cost, as fixed by this Court, on the basis of the guideline issued by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457]. In the light crrp 2755/10/10 -:2:- of the composition of the offence between the contesting parties, I am of the view that this Crl. R.P can be allowed, acquitting the accused in terms of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 8.4.2004 in C.C.No.1105 of 2001 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha and the judgment dated 30.4.2005 in Crl.A.No.596 of 2008 of the Addl. of Sessions Judge(Adhoc-II), Ernakulam and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against him in the above case and he is set at liberty. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- crrp 2755/10/10 -:3:-