CRL.REV.PET No. 1823 of 2012 · Kerala High Court

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.===========================CRL. R.P. NO. 1823 of 2012===========================Dated this the 13th day of August 2012

O R D E RThe revision petitioner was the accused in S.T.No. 77/2006on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II,Varkala. This revision petition is filed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.1119/2006 of the Court of the AdditionalSessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. There isconcurrent verdict of conviction and sentence against the revisionpetitioner, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therevision petitioner herein stands sentenced to undergo imprisonmentfor one year and to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation to the firstrespondent under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. and in default to pay theamount of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for threemonths.

Notice was ordered and served on the 1st respondent/thecomplainant. The learned public prosecutor took notice on behalf of CRL. R.P. NO. 1823 of 2012#2#the 2nd respondent. Now, a joint petition under Section 147 of theN.I. Act has been filed by the revision petitioner and the 1strespondent. It is stated that the 1st respondent has received the entirecompensation as ordered by the court below and in the saidcircumstances, the 1st respondent is not intending to prosecute therevision petitioner. Essentially, the prayer is to permit compounding ofthe offence against the revision petitioner.

An offence under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstruments Act is compoundable in terms of the provisions under Section 147 of the N.I Act. It is evident from the said petition that the1st respondent has volunteered to compound the offence against therevision petitioner u/s. 138 of the N.I. Act. When the law permitscompounding of the offence and the petition now jointly filed by therevision petitioner and the 1st respondent/complainant reveals theintention and willingness on the part of the 1st respondent tocompound the offence u/s. 138 against the revision petitioner, there isno reason to decline such permission. The learned Counsel for the first CRL. R.P. NO. 1823 of 2012#3#respondent submits that what was intended by the petitioner is tocompound the offence against the revision petitioner, under Section147 N.I. Act. Therefore, the little defect in the said application withrespect to the prayer cannot be a reason to decline such permission. Inthe said circumstances, the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Actagainst the revision petitioner is compounded. Resultantly, theconviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner as perthe order dated 9-11-2011 in S.T. No. 77/2006 on the file of the Courtof the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Varkala that was confirmedby the judgment of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, FastTrack Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram in Criminal Appeal No.1119/2006 are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted. The bail bond, ifany, will stand cancelled. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)kvr//True copy/P.A. to Judge