IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1733 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.635/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.220/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :- --------------------------------------------------------------------- K.N.SABU, KOLLAMPARMBIL VEEDU, PUTHENCHANTHA P.O., VAKATHANAM. BY ADV. MR.P.V.BIJUMON RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DEVADAS.D., SWAMIYARMADOM, MUTTAMBALAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.K.P.MADHU R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2010, AND THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt V.K.MOHANAN, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.R.P.No.1733 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 4th day of June 2010 O R D E R Crl.M.P.No.5418 of 2010 This is an application filed under Sec.147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act r/w Sec.320 of Cr.P.C. to compound the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act, in which, the revision petitioner is stand convicted and sentenced against which the above revision petition is filed. 2. In the above petition it is stated that the revision petitioner/accused has paid the cheque amount and thereby the complainant as well as the accused have entered into a compromise and the dispute has been settled out of court and thus, this petition is being filed. The revision petitioner has also produced the receipt issued from the Kerala State Legal Services Authority showing the remittance of Rs.6,750/- made by the revision petitioner being 15% of the Crl.R.P.No.1733 of 2010 : 2 : cheque amount as directed by the Apex Court in the decision in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babulal. H represented in J.T.2010(4) SC page 457. Thus, it is prayed in the above petition that parties may be permitted to compound the said offence. 3. I have perused the above petition and I am satisfied with the terms incorporated therein. The petition is signed by 1st respondent/complainant and the revision petitioner/accused and countersigned by their respective counsels. As the parties have settled the matter out of court it is only proper to allow this petition by permitting the parties to compound the offence. In the result, the composition of offence is recorded and this petition is allowed. Crl.R.P.No.1733 of 2010 This revision petition is preferred by the accused in a prosecution for the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act as he is aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed Crl.R.P.No.1733 of 2010 : 3 : against him by the judgment dated 19.09.2006 in S.T.No.220/06 of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class–I, Kottayam and the judgment dated 17.01.2008 in Crl.Appeal No.635/2006 of the court of Sessions, Kottayam. 2. Today, this Court by separate order in Crl.M.P.No.5418/2010 allowed the parties to compound the offence for which the revision petitioner is stand convicted and sentenced and the said composition of the said offence is recorded. The revision petitioner has also deposited a sum of Rs.6,750/- in the Kerala State Legal Services Authority as directed by the honourable Apex Court in the decision in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babulal. H represented in J.T.2010(4) SC page 457. As the contesting parties have settled the dispute and compounded the offence for which the revision petitioner is stand convicted and sentenced and this Court has also recorded the composition, I am of the view that this revision petition Crl.R.P.No.1733 of 2010 : 4 : can be allowed setting aside the judgments of the courts below and acquitting the revision petitioner, by virtue of Sec.320(8) of the Cr.P.C. In the result, this revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgments of the courts below and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against him and he is set at liberty. The revision petition is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Jvt