IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 793 of 2011 ----------------------------------- ( CRA.258/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM STC.23/2009 of JFCM-III, KANJIRAPPALLY) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------ VINOD,S/O.K.T.THOMAS, AGED 37 YEARS, KALLOOR HOUSE, THEKKETHUKAVALA P.O., CHIRAKKADAVU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE RESPONDENTS(S): -------------------------- 1. JOSE THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 46 YEARS, NALLAPRAMBIL HOUSE, THEKKETHUKAVALA.P.O., CHIRAKKADAVU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 01. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND FOR R2. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 793 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2011 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. 2586/2011, 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 Crl.R.P.No.793 of 2011 -:2:- 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 11.6.2009 in S.T.C.No.23 of 2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kanjirappally and the judgment dated 21.7.2010 in Crl.A.No.258 of 2009 of the court of Sessions, Kottayam Division and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against him in the above case and he is set at liberty. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.793 of 2011 -:3:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No. 2586 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 793 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March,, 2011. 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 matter has been amicably settled out of court between the parties through mediators and the financial liabilities covered by the disputed cheque are cleared by the accused. The first respondent/complainant does not intend to prosecute the matter any further. 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 Crl.R.P.No.793 of 2011 -:4:- 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. [JT 2010(4) SC 457], the revision petitioner was permitted to file the compounding petition depositing an amount of `.4000/- , as per order dated 17.3.2011 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.4000/- to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.261 dated 17.3.2011 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 Crl.R.P.No.793 of 2011 -:5:- 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/ Crl.R.P.No.793 of 2011 -:6:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.M.A.No.7087 of 2010 in Unnumbered Crl.R.P.No. of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This is an application to condone the delay of 1735 days occurred in filing the Crl.R.P. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman and after the impugned judgment, the matter has been settled out of court and a compounding petition has also been filed along with the revision petition and there is no contention on merit. 3. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, especially when the contesting parties settled the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to settle the matter and to redress his grievance. Crl.R.P.No.793 of 2011 -:7:- In the result, the delay of 1735 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition is condoned and the Registry is directed to number the Crl.R.P. V.K.Mohanan, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.793 of 2011 -:8:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ---------------------------- -------- J U D G M E N T Crl.R.P.No.793 of 2011 -:9:- DATED: -2- 2010 Crl.R.P.No.793 of 2011 -:10:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:.. V.K.MOHANAN, J. Crl.R.P.No.793 of 2011 -:11:- O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..