IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1730 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- CRA.260/2003 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.2301/1998 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------- VANDANA SAJEEV, W/O.SAJEEV, VATTATHIL HOUSE, S.S.ASHRAM ROAD, NEAR AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.M.K.NOUSHAD RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.C. THOMAS, S/O.K.T.CHACKO, 50/520A, KOCHUVEETTIL HOUSE, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY (DIED). 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. STANLY, S/O.K.C.THOMAS, 50/520A, KOCHUVEETTIL HOUSE,MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R3 BY ADV. MR.MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO. 1730 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3 rd day of June, 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of the judgment of learned V th Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Crl. Appeal No.260/2003 confirming conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). 2. Petitioner and additional respondent No.3 filed Crl.M.A.No. 5283/2009 reporting settlement and seeking permission to compound the offence. 3. It is seen from application No.5283/2009 that parties have settled the dispute out of court. There is no reason to think that the composition is not voluntary. Offence under Section 138 of the Act is made compoundable under Section 147 of the Act. Hence permission is granted and Crl.M.A.5283/2009 is allowed. The composition entered between the petitioner and additional respondent No.3 is accepted and that shall have the effect of acquittal of the petitioner under Section 320(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that pursuant to the order of the appellate court, petitioner has deposited Rs.50,000/- in the trial court and that as per the settlement, that Crl.R.P.No.1730/09 2 amount is to be returned to the petitioner. Counsel for additional respondent No.3 submits that additional respondent No.3 has no objection in petitioner withdrawing the said amount. Hence, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount, if any deposited in the trial court pursuant to the order of appellate court. Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd