IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1566 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.331/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.817/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- EMILY.T.C,C/O.SAMSON,SWEETY HOME (PUTHENPURAKAL),MARARIKULAM NORTH PANCHAYATH, CHETTY.P.O,ARTHUNKAL,CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. FRANCIS,S/O.SANJOHN,VELIYIL HOUSE, POLLATHAI.P.O,S.L.PURAM,ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.K.S.GOPI FOR R-2 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.C.NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1566 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 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, she is convicted and sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No. 5531/2011, 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 Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011 -: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 2.7.2009 in C.C.No.817 of 2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha and the judgment dated 26.5.2010 in Crl.A.No.331 of 2009 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track-II), Alappuzha and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against her in the above case and she is set at liberty. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011 -:3:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No. 5531 of 2011 in Crl.M.A.No.1385 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 1566 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 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 petition, it is stated that the transaction between the revision petitioner and the second respondent stands settled and both of them do not want to pursue the litigation any further. 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 second respondent/ complainant and countersigned by their respective Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011 -:4:- 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 the compounding petition depositing 10% of the cheque amount, as per order dated 21.6.2011 so as to enable her to move this Court to compound the offence for which she is convicted and sentenced. The revision petitioner has paid a sum of `.5000/- being 10% of the cheque amount to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.332 dated 20.6.2011 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 second respondent and countersigned by their Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011 -:5:- respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition is recorded. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011 -:6:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.M.A.No.7087 of 2010 in Unnumbered Crl.R.P.No. of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This is an application to condone the delay of 1735 days occurred in filing the Crl.R.P. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman and after the impugned judgment, the matter has been settled out of court and a compounding petition has also been filed along with the revision petition and there is no contention on merit. 3. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, especially when the contesting parties settled the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to settle the matter and to redress his grievance. Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011 -:7:- In the result, the delay of 1735 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition is condoned and the Registry is directed to number the Crl.R.P. V.K.Mohanan, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011 -:8:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ---------------------------- -------- J U D G M E N T Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011 -:9:- DATED: -2- 2010 Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011 -:10:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:.. V.K.MOHANAN, J. Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011 -:11:- O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..