IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1005 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.105/2006 of 2006 OF ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, ADHOC-II, THALASSERY. STC.180/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- THAZHE PADIKKAL SURESHAN, S/O.T.P.KUNHAMBU, AGED 51 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, SURYA TRADERS, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR, RESIDING AT EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------- 1. V.K.V.MANOJ, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT SNB HOUSE, VENGARA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT 670 305 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.V.M.UNNI FOR R1 R2 BY P.P. SRI V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1005 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 11th April , 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. 3335/2011, 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 crrp 1005/11 2 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 25.1.2006 in S.T.C.No.180 of 2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Munsiff), Payyannur and the judgment dated 17.1.2011 in Crl.A.No. 105/2006 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-II), Thalassery and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against him in the above cases and he is set at liberty. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- crrp 1005/11 3 Both the counsel for the petitioner as well as the Ist respondent submitted that the matter is settled out of court and they have filed a compounding petition. It is the further submission of the counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner is hailing from a poor family, a lenient view may be taken in the mater of fixing cost towards filing the compounding petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and in the light of the submission made by the counsel, particularly, when the matter is settled out of court, and 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 is directed deposit a sum of Rs.3750/- (Rs.three thousand seven hundred and fifty only) in the KELSA within one week from crrp 1005/11 4 today and on remitting the said amount, the petitioner is directed to produce the receipt before the registry of this court showing the remittance without further delay from the date of remittance of the amount and accordingly and the registry is directed to number the compounding petition and post the same along with the Crl.R.P for further consideration. V.K.MOHANAN, kvm/- JUDGE.