IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2383 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.934/2007 of the Addl.District & Sessions Judge Fast Track(ADHOC II), Kozhikode arising from the judgment dated 16/10/2007 in ST.1505/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------------- PRAJITH.R.K., S/O.SUKUMARAN R.K., MUTHIRAKAKALAYIL HOUSE, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. M/S.CALICUT MERCANTILE FINANCE LTD., VYAPARA BHAVAN SHOPPING COMPLEX, CIVIL STATION.P.O., KOZHIKODE-1, REPRESENTED SRI.A.KRISHNA KUMAR, 'HARIKRISHNA', THADAPARAMBA, NELLIKODE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SMT.LIGEY ANTONY FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.VENUGOPAL.M.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN ----------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2383 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010 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. 7524/2010, 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 16.10.2007 in S.T.No.1505 of 2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode and the judgment dated 6.4.2009 in Crl.A.No.934 of 2007 of Crl.R.P.No.2383 of 2010 2 the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (ADHOC-II), Kozhikode and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against him in the above case and he is set at liberty. 4. In the light of the above order acquitting the accused of all the charges levelled against him, he is entitled to get released from jail forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Accordingly, the Supdt., Central Jail, Kannur is directed to release the revision petitioner from Jail forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The Registry is directed to forward the gist of the order to the Supdt. of Central Jail, Kannur. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.2383 of 2010 3 V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl. M.A.No. 7524 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No. 2383 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010. 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 the disputes between the petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant have been amicably settled and in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the respondent/complainant does not propose to prosecute the petitioner/accused any more. 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. Crl.R.P.No.2383 of 2010 4 [JT 2010(4) SC 457], the revision petitioner was permitted to file the compounding petition depositing 10% of the cheque amount, as per order dated 6.8.2010 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.12,000/- being 10% of the cheque amount to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.083 dated 6.8.2010 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 MBS/