IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 960 of 2002()
1. SURESHKUMAR P.B., PUTHIYAPARAMBIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOSEPH ABRAHAM, KARIANATTU VEEDU,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
For Respondent :SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :03/12/2009
O R D E R
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No.960 OF 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.608/1996 of Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Kanjirappally and appellant in
Crl.Appeal No.141/1999 of Additional Sessions court, Kottayam. He
was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and
was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to
pay a fine of Rs. 60,000/- , in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for one month. Out of the fine amount realised, Rs. 50,000/- was
ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. On appeal by
the accused, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and
the substantive portion of the sentence. But, instead of imposing fine ,
the accused was directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the
complainant. The accused has now come up in revision challenging his
conviction and sentence.
2. When the Criminal Revision Petition came up for hearing
today, both the parties filed Crl.M.11589/2009 seeking permission to
Crl.R.P.No.960/2002 2
compound the offence which was allowed by me. As the offence is
compounded, the revision petition has to be allowed and the accused
has to be acquitted.
In the result, as the offence is compounded, revision petition is
allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court which is
confirmed in appeal are set aside. Accused is acquitted under Section
320 of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds are cancelled.
P.Q.BARKATH ALI
JUDGE
sv.
Crl.R.P.No.960/2002 2