IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 11 of 2004(B) ----------------------------- CRA.173/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.8/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ T.R. SUNIL, S/O. RAGHAVAN, THOTTUMKAL VEEDU, CHAMAMPATHAL P.O., VAZHOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------- 1. MONSON SAMUEL, AYAMKUDIYIL HOUSE, PUNNATHARA, KIDANGOOR, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SHANTI MONSON, W/O. MONSON SAMUEL OF AYAMKUDIYIL HOUSE, PUNNATHARA, KIDANGOOR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BASANT BALAJI SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB FOR R1 SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 11 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2010 Order This revision petition is at the instance of the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He impugns the concurrent order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial court as well as the appellate court. 2. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial court found that the complainant had succeeded in proving the charge against the petitioner and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a sum of Rs. One lakh as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code. The above order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal. 3. The case of the complainant in brief was that the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from him and issued Ext.P2 cheque in discharge of the said debt. But when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned with the endorsement “account closed”. The statutory demand notice issued by the complainant did not yield any result. Hence the complaint. 4. The complainant got himself examined as Pw.2. His Crl.RP.11/2004. :2 : wife was examined as Pw.1 . Exts.P1 to P11 were also marked on the side of the complainant. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the petitioner/accused. As mentioned earlier, the trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found that the petitioner is guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him. 5. When this revision petition came up for admission, this Court granted stay of execution of the sentence on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.30,000/-. It is on record that the petitioner has deposited the above sum before the trial court. 6. When the case is taken up for consideration before me today, it is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the matter has been compromised between them out of court. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant has received the amount pursuant to the settlement and that he has no further grievance against the accused. In other words, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the complainant is not very keen to pursue the case any further. A compromise petition signed by the complainant and the accused and their respective counsel has also been filed, in which it has been stated that the complainant has no further grievance against the accused in view of the compromise. The complainant has further agreed that he Crl.RP.11/2004. : 3 : has no objection in allowing the petitioner/accused to withdraw the sum of Rs.30,000/- deposited by him as a condition for stay of execution of the sentence. In view of the above intervening development and in view of the compromise petition filed by the parties, I am satisfied that the revision petition can be closed recording the compromise. 7. Therefore the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside. He is acquitted. The trial court shall release the amount in deposit to the petitioner. The revision petition is closed in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.