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. 3258 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- CRL.A.188/2005 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM, CC.NO.1054/2004 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, (MOBILE), KOTTAYAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- P.P.PUNNEN, PERUMPARAKUNNEL HOUSE, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. MR.KISHOR B, MR.K.VIDYASAGAR. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.T.DAS. PULICKAPARAMPIL HOUSE, VADAVATHUR P.O, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN. 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.3258 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1054 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, (Mobile), Kottayam. 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. He was also directed to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the first respondent, in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of two months. The learned Sessions Judge, Kottayam, 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 first respondent settled out of court and jointly filed a petition as Crl.M.Appl.No.10105 of 2009 seeking permission for Crl.R.P.No.3258 of 2009 2 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.10105 of 2009 is recorded and the revision petitioner is acquitted U/s.147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and r/w. section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is set at liberty. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE Skj.