IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1365 of 2002(B) ------------------------------- CRA.20/2000 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.497/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PUNALUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- C.RAJENDRAN PILLAI, MANAKKATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, AYOOR, EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE. KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV SMT.LIGEY ANTONY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. CHANDRADASAN, THEKKATHIL VEEDU, CHAMPAKARA MANALLOOR, EDAMULAKKAL, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1365 of 2002 --------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of July 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Kollam in Crl. Appeal No. 20 of 2000 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”) 2. Petitioner and respondent No.1 filed Crl.M.A.No.7018 of 2009 reporting settlement and seeking permission to compound the offence. 3. It is seen from Crl.M.A.No.7018 of 2009 that parties have settled the dispute out of court. There is no reason to think that the composition is not voluntary. Offence under Sec.138 of the Act is made compoundable under Sec.147 of the Act. Hence permission is granted and Crl.M.A.No.7018 of 2009 is allowed. The composition entered between petitioner and respondent No.1 is accepted and that shall have the effect of acquittal of petitioner under Sec.320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that a sum of Rs.30500/- (Thirty Thousand Five Hundred Only) has been deposited in the trial court as directed by this court. Petitioner has no objection in respondent No.1 withdrawing that amount. Accordingly it is directed that the amount if any deposited in the trial court can be withdrawn by Crl.R.P.No.1365 of 2009 2 respondent No.1. Revision Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/