IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2077 of 2008()
1. T.M.ANILKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :06/11/2008
O R D E R
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P. NO. 2077 OF 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008
O R D E R
Petitioner is the accused in C.C. 432 of 1999 on the file of
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kannur. On the basis of Ext.P1
complaint filed by Baburaj, who was examined as PW1, Ext.P3
F.I.R. was prepared and Crime 423 of 1998 of Valapattanam
police station was registered. After investigation charge for the
offence under section 420 of IPC alleging that revision petitioner
induced PWs 1 and 2 that he will arrange visa on receipt of
Rs.40,000/- and Rs.40,000/- was received from PWs 1 and 2 and
petitioner did not arrange the visa and there was intention to
cheat when the amount was received and revision petitioner
misappropriated the amount so received from PWs 1 and 2. A
final report was filed to the effect that petitioner committed the
offence under section 420 of IPC. Learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offence. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. On the
evidence of PWs 1 to 5 and Exts.P1 to P3, petitioner was
convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 420 of
CRRP 2077/08 2
IPC. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before
Sessions Court, Thalassery in Crl. Appeal 321of 2002. Learned
Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence and
dismissed the appeal. Revision is filed challenging the
conviction and sentence.
2. Crl.M.P.10793 of 2008 is filed by PWs 1 and 2, who
were allegedly cheated by the petitioner, to get themselves
impleaded as additional respondents in the revision. They also
filed Crl.M.A.10794 of 2008, a petition seeking leave of the
Court to compound the offence stating that they have received
the amount due to them from the revision petitioner and
therefore they may be permitted to compound the offence. As
the prosecution case is that it was PWs 1 and 2 who were
cheated by the petitioner, Crl.M.P.10793 of 2008 is allowed and
PWs 1 and 2 examined before the trial Court, were impleaded as
additional respondents.
3. The offence under section 420 of IPC is
compoundable with the leave of the Court as provided under sub
section 2 of section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The
offence can be compounded by the person cheated with the
leave of the Court. As respondents 2 and 3 who were examined
CRRP 2077/08 3
as PWs 2 and 3 before the learned Magistrate, are the persons
cheated by revision petitioner, they are entitled to compound the
offence with leave of the Court. Hence Crl.M.A.10794 of 2008 is
allowed. Leave is granted to compound the offence. Offence is
compounded.
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Okb/-