IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2007 / 21ST PAUSHA 1928 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 970 of 2006(A) ------------------------------ CRL.A.330/04 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSION'S COURT, KOZHIKODE DIVISION CC.105/2003 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, KOZHIKODE REVN. PETITIONER: ACCUSED/APPELLANT. ------------------------------------------------------------ P.MADHUSOODANAN, S/O.CHANDERASEKHARAN NAIR, PARANGOTTU HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMIR P.O., KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENTS. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.SIDHA AGENCIES, RUBY BUILDINGS, RAJAJI ROAD, KOSHIKODE, REP. BY P.A.HOLDER SUBASH BABU, S/O.LATE CHANDUKUTTY, POOMADATHIL HOUSE, PERUMPOYIL, KAKKUR, KOSHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV.SMT.T.KAMALA MENON BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.970 of 2006 -------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of January, 2007. O R D E R Revision Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.105 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court No.II, Kozhikode. First respondent is the complainant therein. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate's Court to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In appeal filed by him, the conviction and sentence were modified by the Additional Sessions Court. This revision arises from the said conviction and sentence. 2. At the time of hearing, both sides submitted that a petition as Crl.M.Appl.No.445 of 2007 is filed for compounding the offence. It is also submitted by both sides that the matter is settled out of court amicably between the parties and the amount is also paid by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the second respondent. On hearing both sides and on going through the averments in the petition, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to grant permission to compound the offence. In the result, Revision Petitioner is acquitted of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as offence is compounded. He is set at liberty forthwith. Crl. M.Appl.No.445 of 2007 and Revision Petition are allowed. vgs. K. HEMA, JUDGE.