IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1201 of 2005() ------------------------------ CRA.380/2004 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM DIVISION CC.150/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- P.V. SANTHOSH, S/O. VISWANATHAN, MANIMURI PLAMPARAMBIL, THRIKKODITHANAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O.RAGHAVANACHARY, IEMPATHANATHU HOUSE, CHIRAKKADAVU CENTRE P.O., PONKUNNAM. ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI JAIBY PAUL FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Crl.R.P. No. 1201 of 2005 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.150 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class- II (Mobile), Kottayam and the appellant in Crl.A.No.380 of 2004 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kottayam Division. He was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation of ` 3,00,000/- to the complainant, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. On appeal filed by the accused, the lower appellate court confirmed his conviction and sentence. Now, the accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 2. When the revision petition came up today, the counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the matter has been settled between the parties. CRRP 1201/2005 2 Crl.M.A.No.5929/2011 has been filed by the revision petitioner/accused and the second respondent/complainant seeking permission to compound the offence. The said application is allowed and the offence is compounded. 3. In the result, as the offence has been compounded the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner/accused by the trial court which were confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court are set aside and the revision petitioner/accused is acquitted under section 320 Cr.P.C.. His bail bonds are cancelled. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn CRRP 1201/2005 3 P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Crl.R.P. No. 1201 of 2005 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ O R D E R 1-7-2011