IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1348 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.397/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURTS (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.1067/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.ANANDAN, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MANNAR BRANCH, KURATTISSERY, MANNAR. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. MATHEW K.JOHN, KALARICKALTHARAYIL, ERAMALLOOR MURI, THRIPPERUMTHARA, MANNAR-689622. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNALAL FOR R1 R1 BY P.P. SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.1348 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 30th Day of May , 2011 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. 4766/2011, 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 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 26.7.2006 in C.C.No.1067 of 2004 of Crl.R.P..No.1348/11 -:2:- the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur and the judgment dated 25.7.2006 of the Addl.Sessions Judge,Fast Track (Ad hoc) Mavelikara, and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against him in the above cases and he is set at liberty. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is arrested and now he is in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapruam and he may be ordered to be released in the light of the acquittal recorded by this Court. In the light of the order passed by this Court acquitting the revision petitioner/accused, he is entitled to get released from jail forthwith in case he is not required in any other case. Therefore, the Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruvannathparuam for further action. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- Crl.R.P..No.1348/11 -:3:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No.4766 of 2011 in CRL.R.P.No.1348 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 30th May 2011 ORDER 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 Crl.R.P..No.1348/11 -:4:- petition, it is stated that during the pendency of the cases, the entire dispute was settled out of court between the parties and the first respondent/complainant 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 first respondent/ complainant and countersigned by their respective counsel. Considering the particular facts and circumstances involved in the case, especially, in the light of the discretion granted to this Court by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457], the revision petitioner was permitted to file compounding petition depositing Rs.2500/-, as per order dated 27.5.2011 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.2000/- towards cost in the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, Crl.R.P..No.1348/11 -:5:- vide Receipt No.311 dated 30.5.2011 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 first respondent and countersigned by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition is recorded. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- Crl.R.P..No.1348/11 -:6:- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- Crl.R.P..No.1348/11 -:7:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.A.No. ..(unnumbered) of 2011 in Crl.R.P No.1348 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 27th Day of May, 2011 ORDER This unnumbered application is filed seeking permission of this court to compound the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for which the revision petitioner stands convicted. The challenge in this Crl.R.P. is against the above conviction and sentence. The Registry of this Court noted the following defect that the compounding petition is signed by the wife of the revision petitioner and 15% of the cheque amount is not deposited in the KELSA. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled out of court and since the revision petitioner/accused is undergoing imprisonment in the Sub Jail, Mavelikara, the petitioner is not in a position to sign the compounding petition and therefore, it is signed by his wife. The above submission is not acceptable, since the revision petitioner is the accused who is found guilty under section 138 of the N.I.Act and therefore, one of the signatories to the compounding petition must be the accused. Therefore, it is Crl.R.P..No.1348/11 -:8:- only just and proper to obtain the signature of the petitioner/accused in the compounding petition and , I am sure that, if the wife or the counsel for the petitioner approaches the Superintendent of the Sub Jail , Mavalikara, they will permit the accused to put his signature in the compounding petition in their presence. Thus the above defect can be cured. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment and he is hailing from a poor family and therefore he is not in a position to deposit 15% of the cheque amount in the KELSA and therefore, a lenient view may be taken in the matter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to deposit a sum of Rs.2500/- (Rs. Two thousand five hundred only) in the KELSA, which will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the petitioner is further directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2500/- in the KELSA within one week from today and he is further directed to produce the receipt before the Registry of this court showing the remittance along with the compounding petition, which will be returned to him. In the result, the Registry is directed to return the compounding petition to the counsel for the petitioner with a direction to the petitioner to file the above compounding petition after curing Crl.R.P..No.1348/11 -:9:- the defect, by obtaining the signature of the petitioner and producing the receipt showing the remittance as directed above. Post on Monday. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE