IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2011 / 9TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1602 of 2011 ------------------------------------ (JUDGMENT DTD.31.1.2007 IN CC NO. 733/2005 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HARIPAD JUDGMENT DTD.19.3.2008 IN CRL.A.NO.129/2007 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA) REVN. PETITIONER(S): ----------------------------- JAYALATHA, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, PROPRIETOR, BHARATHY TRADING COMPANY, MANAGALAM P.O., ARATTUPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN RESPONDENTS(S): ------------------------ 1. SUBAIR, MANAGING PARTNER, REJI TRADING COMPANY, DANAPADY, HARIAPD-673311 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031 BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.C.NAYAR FOR R2. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1602 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 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 she is convicted and sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No.5680/ 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 contesting Crl.R.P.No. 1602 of 2011 -:2:- 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 Criminal Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 31.1.2007 in C.C.No. 733 of 2005 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Haripad and the judgment dated 19.3.2008 in Crl.A.No. 129 of 2007 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavellikkara and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against her in the above case and she is set at liberty. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE MBS/ Crl.R.P.No. 1602 of 2011 -:3:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No. 5680 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No. 1602 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 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 dispute between the revision petitioner and the first respondent is settled at the behest of mediation and the first respondent agreed to compound the offence and withdraw the complaint. The first respondent 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 the revision Crl.R.P.No. 1602 of 2011 -:4:- 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 `.10,000/-, as per order dated 22.6.2010 so as to enable her to move this Court to compound the offence for which she is convicted and sentenced. The revision petitioner has paid a sum of `.10,000/- to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No. 341 dated 24.6.2011 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 Crl.R.P.No. 1602 of 2011 -:5:- 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/ Crl.R.P.No. 1602 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 Crl.R.P.No. 1602 of 2011 -:7:- grievance. 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. 1602 of 2011 -:8:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------ ------ J U D G M E N T Crl.R.P.No. 1602 of 2011 -:9:- DATED: -2- 2010 Crl.R.P.No. 1602 of 2011 -:10:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Crl.R.P.No. 1602 of 2011 -:11:- Dated:.. V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Crl.R.P.No. 1602 of 2011 -:12:- Dated:..