IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2929 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.570/2009 of ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE(ADHOC-III) N. PARAVUR. ST.94/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, N.PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ROY DEVASSY,S/O.DEVASSY,THEKKINEDATH, PARUDEESA NAGAR ,NEAR ST.ALOYSIOUS SCHOOL, PARAVUR VILLAGE,PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI SRI.JACOB GEORGE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. M.K.ASHIQUE,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,MANAYATH HOUSE,POTTENTHERUVU, PARAVUTHARA MURI,PARAVUR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) FOR R1 R2 BY P.P. SRI V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.2929 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 11th Day of April , 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. 3324/2011, 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. 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 14.8.2009 in S.T.No.94 of 2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, N.Paravur and the judgment dated 9.4.2010 in Crl.A.No.570/2009 of the Addl.District & Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-III) N.Paravur 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/- V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. M.A.No. 3324 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No.2929 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April 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 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 is signed by both 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 5% of the cheque amount in the KELSA, as per order dated 28.1.2011 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.6000/- being 5% of the cheque amount to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.231 dated 21.2.2010 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 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/- .