IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1369 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.411/2002 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CC.825/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- RAJAN, S/O.CHATHU, AGED 29 YEARS, MARIYAKUNI HOUSE, ERAMALA AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- 1. K.M.SANTHOSHAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 27 YEARS, "SOPANAM", THURAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL FOR R1 SRI.N.F.JOHN JOSEPH THOMAS FOR R1 R2 BY P.P. SRI V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.1369 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 27th Day of May , 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. 12120/2010, 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 CRRP 1369/11 -:2:- aside the judgment dated 24.7.2002 in C.C.No.825 of 2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara, and the judgment dated 11.2.2005 of the Ist Addl.Sessions Judge, Kozhikode 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 kvm/- CRRP 1369/11 -:3:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No.12120 of 2010 in CRRP 1369/11 -:4:- CRL.R.P.No.1369 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 30th day of May, 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 during the pendency of the cases, the entire dispute was settled and the first respondent/complainant has received the entire amount covered by the cheque in dispute. The first respondent/complainant does not intend to prosecute the petitioner/revision petitioner any further in the matter. 2. I have gone through the compounding petition and I am satisfied with the terms and conditions incorporated therein and the petition. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Rajeswari v. CRRP 1369/11 -:5:- Jagadish {(2008(2)KLT SN 41 (C.No.50)SC}, the petition is in order, though it is signed by the wife of the revision petitioner, who is abroad and the first respondent/complainant, since the petition is 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 compounding petition depositing Rs.3,500/-, as per order dated 3.11.2010 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.3,500/- towards cost in the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.126 dated 15.12.2010 in terms of the decision of the Supreme CRRP 1369/11 -:6:- Court. As I am satisfied with the terms and the averments contained in the compounding petition, which is signed by the revision petitioner's wife 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 kvm/- CRRP 1369/11 -:7:-