IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 986 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.918/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK 1), TRIVANDRUM ST.719/2006 of 2006 OF JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-VIII THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- Y.A.FAZIL, RANEES, OPPOSITE VIGILANCE OFFICE, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------- 1. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SMRITHY, BHAGAVATHY NADA, VEDIVECHANCOIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 501. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN FOR R1 R2 BY P.P. SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.986 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 11th Day of April , 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 that the accused is guilty and accordingly he is convicted and sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No. 3223/2011, 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. 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated in S.T.No.719 of 2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- VIII, Thiruvananthapuram and the judgment dated 12..3..2009 in Crl.A.No.918/2009 of the Addl.Sessions Judge, Fast Track court-I, Thiruvananthapruam and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against him in the above case and he is set at liberty. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No.3223 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No.986 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 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 entire matter was settled and the first respondent/complainant has received the entire amount covered by the cheque in dispute. The first respondent/complainant does not intend to prosecute the petitioner/revision petitioner any further in the matter. 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 and the first respondent/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.8000/- as per order dated 29.3.2011 so as to enable him to move this Court to compound the offence for which he is convicted and sentenced. The revision petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.8000/- being cost to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.280 dated 4.4.2011 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 composition is recorded. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- kvm/- V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.M.A.No.7087 of 2010 in Unnumbered Crl.R.P.No. of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This is an application to condone the delay of 1735 days occurred in filing the Crl.R.P. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman and after the impugned judgment, the matter has been settled out of court and a compounding petition has also been filed along with the revision petition and there is no contention on merit. 3. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, especially when the contesting parties settled the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to settle the matter and to redress his grievance. In the result, the delay of 1735 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition is condoned and the Registry is directed to number the Crl.R.P. V.K.Mohanan, Judge. MBS/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T DATED: -2-2010 V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:.. V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:.. This Crl.Revision Petition is preferred by the sole accused in C.C.No..... on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, ... and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No..... of the Addl.Sessions Judge, ......... The revision petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The cheque in question involved is for an amount of Rs.......This Court passed an order today allowing the compounding petition filed by the revision petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent, countersigned by their respective counsels. In the light of the fact that the offence has been compounded by the parties to the dispute, I am of the view that this Crl.Revision Petition can be allowed setting aside the judgments of the courts below. In the result, this Crl.R.P is allowed setting aside the judgment dated ...... in ..... of the JFCM-II, ...... and the judgment dated in Crl.A.No...... of the Addl. Sessions Judge, ...... Court-II, Alappuzha and acquitting the accused. The Crl.R.P is allowed as above. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- .