IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2649 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.489/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURTS (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.322/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------- ABOOBAKER, THAZHAMVILA THEKKETHIL HOUSE, KOLLAKADAVU, CHENGANNUR. BY ADVS. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL, SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW. RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOHN POTHEN, PALLITHAZHATHU HOUSE, THITTAMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.MUHAMMED SUHAILKHAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN,J --------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.2649 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 13th 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 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. 9597/2010, 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 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. 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 30.9.2008 in C.C.No.322 of 2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Chenganoor, and the judgment dated 8.9..2009 in Crl.A.No.489 of 2008 of the court of Addl.Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Ad hoc), Mavelikara, and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges CRRP 2649/10 :-2-: levelled against him in the above case and he is set at liberty. 4. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a sum of Rs.5000/- has already been deposited in the trial court in compliance of the order of the appellate court while suspending the execution of the sentence and the said amount may be permitted to withdraw by the revision petitioner. Counsel for the Ist respondent has also admitted the said fact and expressed his no objection in withdrawing the amount. Accordingly, there will be a direction that if the said amount is deposited and retained in the trial court, the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner on an application in this regard preferred by the revision petitioner. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/-