IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH, 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 836 of 2011 ---------------------------------- ( CRA.409/2009 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.463/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------- RAJI, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. REGHUNATHAN, 'SOUPARNIKAYIL', CHIRAKADAVUM MURI, KAYAMKULAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH RESPONDENTS(S): ------------------------- 1. RADHA JAYADAS, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.K.P.JAYADAS, DHANYAYIL, CHIRAKADAVUM MURI, KAYAMKULAM P.O., KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN FOR R1. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN FOR R2. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 836 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 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 her guilty and accordingly she is convicted and sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No. 2732/2011, 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. Crl.R.P.No.836 of 2011 :-2-: 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 27.8.2009 in C.C.No.463 of 2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam and the judgment dated 23.12.2010 in Crl.A.No.409 of 2009 of the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc), Mavelikkara and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against her in the above case and she is set at liberty. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is arrested and now, she is in the Sub Jail, Mavelikkara and she 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, she is entitled to get released from jail forthwith in case she is not required in any other case. Therefore, the Registry is directed to Crl.R.P.No.836 of 2011 :-3-: forward the gist of this order to the Superintendent, Sub Jail, Mavelikkara for further action. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.836 of 2011 :-4-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No. 2732 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 836 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 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 cases, the petitioner and the respondent have settled the matter amicably whereby the petitioner has paid to the respondent the entire amount due to her as per the transaction involved in the case. 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/accused and the first respondent in the Crl.R.P.No.836 of 2011 :-5-: Crl.R.P./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.5000/-in the KELSA as per order dated 21.3.2011 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 Rs.5000/- being cost in the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.267 dated 21.3.2011 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 Crl.R.P.No.836 of 2011 :-6-: composition is recorded. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE MBS/- Crl.R.P.No.836 of 2011 :-7-: