IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2010 / 11TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 6 of 2010() --------------------------- Crl.A. No.664/2006 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM. S.T.NO.1285/2005 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTAYAM. REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- P.K.PRASAD, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, PAATHIYARAM HOUSE, KUMARAKOM MARKET JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.VINAYAN, KIZHAKKOKANAMALIYILL HOUSE, COLLECTORATE.P.O, MULLANKUZHY, KOTTAYAM-2. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA FOR R1 ADV. SRI.V.S.PREJITH FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 6 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 1st day of January,2010 O R D E R Challenge in this revision petition is to the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kottayam in ST.No.1285 of 2005, convicting the revision petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, which was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court, Kottayam by judgment dated September 22, 2007 in Crl.A. No.6764/2006. 2. The case of the 2nd respondent/complainant as testified by him as PW.1 before the trial court and as detailed in the complaint is that the accused borrowed Rs.50,000/- from him and to discharge that liability, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated July 8, 2005 for Rs.50,000/-, which when presented for collection was returned dishonoured for want of sufficiency of funds in the account of the accused in the bank and that in spite of notice Ext.P4, the accused did not repay the amount, which is Crl.R.P. 6/2010 2 an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and took cognizance of the offence. Accused on appearance before the trial court pleaded not guilty to a charge under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the complainant. When questioned under sec.313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that he has already repaid the amount due to the complainant. No defence evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate on an appreciation of the evidence found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid, which is confirmed in appeal. The accused has now come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 4. When this petition came up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties. Crl.M.A. No.12918 of 2009 is filed, signed by the parties and counter-signed by both the Crl.R.P. 6/2010 3 counsel seeking permission to compound the offence. The application is allowed by me and the offence is compounded. As the offence is compounded, the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner have to be set aside and the revision petitioner has to be acquitted. 5. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner by the trial court, which was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court are set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted under section 320 Cr.P.C. His bail bonds are cancelled. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn