IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 812 of 2006() ----------------------------- CRA.223/2003 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.1666/1999 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------- P.VENKITESH, KOLTHARI FABRICS, CHALAI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. S.ANILKUMAR, USHAVIHAR, PALLITHANAM ROAD, NEDUNGAD, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR ADV. SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: smt V.K. MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 812 OF 2006 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 13th June, 2011 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and the trial court 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. 5096/2011, 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 DamodarS.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. Crl.R.P.No. 812 OF 2006 2 In the result, this Crl. Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 31.03.2003 in C.C. No. 1666/99 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trivandrum, and the judgment dated 17.11.2005 in Crl.A.No. 223/2003 of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against him in the above case and he is set at liberty. As this court has acquitted the accused by invoking Sec.320 (8) of Cr.P.C consequent on allowing compounding petition, it is only just and proper to make provision to give effect of the terms of composition of the offence and to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount of Rs.15,000/- which he had deposited in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum on the basis of the order passed by this Court while suspending the execution of the sentence. Accordingly, the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum is directed to release a sum of Rs.15,000/-, which the petitioner had already deposited as per the order dated 02.03.2006 in Crl.M.A. 2220/2006 of this Court, if the said amount is still Crl.R.P.No. 812 OF 2006 3 retained in that court, and in want of the petitioner move an application in this regard. The Revision Petition is allowed. V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE smt Crl.R.P.No. 812 OF 2006 4 V.K. MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------- Crl.M.A. No. 5096 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 812 of 2006 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 13th June, 2011 O R D E R This is a petition filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The dispute is the subject matter of the Crl.R.P. In the petition, it is stated that during the pendency of the cases, the entire matter was settled and the 1st respondent has received the entire amount covered by the cheque in-dispute. The first respondent does not intend to prosecute the petitioner/revision petitioner any further in the matter. 2. I have gone through the compounding petition and I am satisfied with the terms and conditions incorporated therein and the petition is signed by both the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent and countersigned by their respective counsel. Considering the particular facts and Crl.R.P.No. 812 OF 2006 5 circumstances involved in this case, especially, in the light of the discretion granted to this Court by the Apex court in the decision reported in DamodarS.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal/H.(JT 2010(4) SC 457), the revision petitioner was permitted to file the compounding petition deposing a sum of Rs.4,500/- on 07.06.2011 so as to enable him to move this Court to compound the offence for which he is convicted and sentenced. The revision petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.4,500/- being cost to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No. 315 dated 07.06.2011 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. As I am satisfied with the terms and the averments contained in the compounding petition, which is signed by the revision petitioner as well as the 1st respondent and countersigned by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition is recorded. V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE smt