IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1925 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.362/2009 of Court of Sessions, Manjeri Division Adhoc-II, Manjeri CC.202/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.T.SHAHEEDULLA , AGED 40 YEARS, S/O ABOOBACKER, KANNAMTHODI HOUSE, POPPALAM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------------------- 1. SHANAVAS, S/O.PACHERI USMAN, ADIVARAM, KUNNAPPALLI, PATHAIKARA AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST-679 322. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN FOR R1 SRI.PRAVEEN.H. FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.1925 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th 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 have 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. 5675/2011, 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 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. In the result, this Crl. Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 17.11.2009 in C.C.No.202/2008 of the Crl. R.P. No.1925 OF 2010 2 Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna and the judgment dated 25.06.2010 in Crl.A.No.362/2009 of the Court of Sessions, Manjeri Division Adhoc-II, Manjeri 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 pm/- Crl. R.P. No.1925 OF 2010 3 V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No. 5675 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No.1925 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th 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 during the pendency of the cases, the entire matter was settled and the 1st respondent/complainant has received the entire amount covered by the cheque in dispute. The 1st 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 is signed by both the revision petitioner and the 1st 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 Crl. R.P. No.1925 OF 2010 4 in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457], the revision petitioner was permitted to file the compounding petition by depositing a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only), as per order dated 22.06.2011 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.15,000/- being the cost to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.342 dated 24.06.2011 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 revision petitioner as well as the 1st respondent and countersigned by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition of the offence under Section 138 NI Act is recorded. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/-