IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 494 of 2005(B) ------------------------------ CRA.680/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.1341/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,CHALAKUDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- JOSE JOSEPH,19/102, COOL HOME,MURIKKAVU P.O., YAKKARA WEST,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER SRI.SACHIN VYAS SRI.BIJU S.CHIRAYATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. JOSE ANTONY,S/O.ANTONY, THOTTATHIL HOUSE,WEST CHALAKKUDY, PROPRIETOR ANNA FASHIONS,MURINGOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER,HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON 10/12/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.2725/05 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 494 OF 2005 DISMISSED 10.12.2010 SD/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 494 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010 O R D E R This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 1341 of 2000 on the file of J.F.C.M.Court, Chalakkudy. The first respondent herein was the complainant in that case, which was filed alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, involving a cheque for Rs.22,487/- 2. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he was sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.22,487/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In appeal filed by the accused as Crl.A.No. 680 of 2003 before the Addl. Sessions Court Trichur, the conviction was confirmed and Crl.R.P.No. 494 of 2005 2 the sentence was modified to that of S.I. for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.22,487/- in default to undergo S.I. for five months. Against that judgment the accused filed this revision petition. 3. During the pendency of this revision petition before this Court, as agreed by both sides, as per Order dt. 14.9.2010 this Court referred the matter to the Kerala Mediation Centre attached to this Court for settlement. The Kerala Mediation Centre filed a report along with the Mediator's settlement, signed by both complainant and the accused, stating that they agreed to settle the entire dispute by paying Rs.40,000/- to the first respondent/ complainant and on 30.11.2010 the revision petitioner/accused gave Rs.40,000/- to the first respondent/complainant and stating that the entire matter is settled. That report is accepted. 4. In the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H (2010(2) KHC 428 (SC)), the Apex Court issued Crl.R.P.No. 494 of 2005 3 certain guidelines for compounding the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to the effect that if compounding is made before the High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of cost and this guidelines to operate prospectively. In that decision it is further stated that the competent court can, of course, reduce the cost with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of the case while recording reasons in writing for such variance. 5. In the present case, the parties are prepared to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act due to the intervention of the Mediation Centre as per order of this Court and the entire matter is settled. Therefore, I think that it would be just and reasonable to exempt the revision petitioner from paying the cost. Since the matter is amicably settled between the parties and the complainant received the entire amount with interest and cost, Crl.R.P.No. 494 of 2005 4 I am of the view that permission can be granted to compound the offence. 6. Accordingly this revision petition is allowed. The offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in C.C.No. 1341 of 2000 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Court, Chalakkudy is compounded. The conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is set aside and the accused is acquitted and he is set at liberty. His bail bond is cancelled. (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm