IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1618 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.462/2004 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.184/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VARKALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- VIJAYAN NAIR, KARIYARA VEEDU, JANARDANAPURAM, VARKALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. PRASAD N., S/O.NARAYANAN, SANTHI BHAVAN, KADAKKAVOOR P.O., PIN-695306. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI K.N. RADHAKRISHNAN . R2 BY P.P. SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.1618 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 28th 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 he is convicted and sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No. 5666/2011, 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 2 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 3.8.2004 in C.C.No.184 of 2001 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Varkala and the judgment dated 8.8.2006 in Crl.A.No.462 of 2004 of the court of Sessions Judge, Kollam and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against him in the above case and he is set at liberty. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- 3 V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No. 5666 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 1618 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th 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 during the pendency of the case, the entire matter was settled and the Ist respondent in herein who is the complainant has received the entire amount covered by the cheque in dispute and he does not intend to prosecute the 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 4 the revision petitioner and the Ist 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 the compounding petition depositing a sum of Rs.15,000/-, in the KELSA towards cost for filing compounding petition, as per order dated 27.6.2011 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.15,000/- being cost to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.340 dated 23.6.2011 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. As I am satisfied with the terms and the 5 averments contained in the compounding petition, which is signed by the revision petitioner as well as the Ist respondent/complainant and countersigned by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition is recorded. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- 6