IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3255 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- CRL.A.NO.80/2002 OF ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III, KOLLAM. CC.NO.643/1998 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- LAINE VIJAYAN, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.RAGHAVAN, PUTHENVILA VEEDU, KURUMANDAL, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.DILEEP P.PILLAI. RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. *2. P.VISWAMBARAN, P.V.BHAVAN, KURUMANDAL, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. *(DIED) *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 IMPLEADED: 3. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. LATE VISWAMBHARAN, P.V. BHAVAN, KURUMANDAL, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. 4. SAJI KUMAR, S/O. OF DO. 5. BROZI, D/O. DO. DO. CRL.R.P. NO. 3255/2009: 6. BINU, S/O. OF DO. DO. *ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 2ND RESPONDENT AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 IN THE CRL.R.P. AS PER ORDER DTD. 30/09/09 IN CRLL.M.A. NO. 9256/09. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RITHWIK, ADDL. R3 TO R6 BY ADV. MR.A.V.MIDHUN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3255 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.643 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Paravoor. The second 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. He was also directed to pay Rupees one lakh as compensation to the second respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-III, Kollam, in appeal, confirmed the above conviction and sentence. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. Today, when the revision petition came up for hearing the revision petitioner and the legal heirs of second respondent settled the matter out of court and jointly Crl.R.P.No.3255 of 2009 2 filed a petition as Crl.M.A.No.9775 of 2009 seeking permission for compounding the offence alleged. 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.9775 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 and is set at liberty. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE Skj.