IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1370 of 2002() ------------------------------ CRA.553/2001 of SPL.COURT SPE/CBI-II & IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.663/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- C.T.THOMAS, CHACKLIAM THADATHIL, KATTACHIRA, ETTUMANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB SMT.B.S.SEEMA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- 1. N.U.ISSAC, NAMBYALIL HOUSE, PAKKUZHAKARA, PALAKUZHA VILLAGE, KOOTHATTUKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C.M.KAMMAPPU FOR R2. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. ------------------------------------------------------ CRL. R.P. 1370 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: DECEMBER 7, 2009 ORDER The challenge in this revision is to the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupzua in C.C.No.663 of 1998 dated July 7, 2001 convicting the accused under sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.1,75,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, which is confirmed in appeal by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam by judgment dated July 20, 2002 in Crl.A.553/2001. 2. The case of the revision 1st respondent/complainant as testified by him as PW.1 and as detailed in the complaint before the trial court was that the accused borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant and to discharge that liability he issued the cheque Ext.P1 on June 2, 1998 drawn on the Federal Bank Ltd., Koothattukulam, which, when presented for collection was returned dishonoured for want of sufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner, that in spite of the notice Ext.P4 dated July 17, 1998, the accused did not repay the amount, which is an offence punishable under sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. CRL. R.P. 1370 of 2002 2 3. On receipt of the complaint the trial court recorded the sworn statement of the complainant/PW.1 and took cognizance of the offence. The accused on appearance before the trial court pleaded not guilty to the charge under sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. PW.1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on the side of the complainant. When questioned under sec.313 Cr.P.C. by the trial court, the accused denied the transaction. No defence evidence was adduced. On the side of the accused, DW.1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D4 were marked. 4. The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid which is confirmed in appeal. 5. When the revision petition came up for hearing today, the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent filed a joint petition seeking permission to compound the offence which was allowed by me. As the offence is compounded, the revision petition has to be allowed and the accused has to be acquitted. In the result, as the offence is compounded, the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused/revision petitioner rendered by the trial court and confirmed in appeal, is set CRL. R.P. 1370 of 2002 3 aside. The accused is acquitted under sec.320 of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds are cancelled. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE CRL.M.P.7786/2002 Dismissed. 7.12.2009. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/- mt/-