IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 4178 OF 2008 JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2008 IN Crl.A NO.431 OF 2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PATHANAMTHITTA JUDGMENT DATED 07.11.2006 IN ST NO.80 OF 2003 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PATHANAMTHITTA REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: THRESIAMMA SKARIAH KAIPAN PALACKAL HOUSE, THADIYOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1 P.M.PHILIPOSE MANAGING PARTNER, LOYAL BANKERS, CHERUKOLE, REPRESENTED BY IT'S, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.R.SIVANKUTTY, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, KANJIRATHUMPARAYIL, CHERUKOLE,, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJJU.S SRI. K.SHAJ SRI SANGEETHARAJ NR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:28462 Crl.R.P No.4178 of 2008 2 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in ST No.80/2003, on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, a case which arose from a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent, alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner to Simple Imprisonment for six months, with a direction to pay compensation Rs.2,01,500/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and fine Rs.2,01,500/-, with a default clause of Simple Imprisonment for three months. Challenging the above judgment of the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.431 of 2006, the petitioner has filed this revision before this Court. 2. When the matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the 1st respondent submitted that the issue has been amicably settled between the parties, and hence, the case has to be compounded. The petitioner has produced the affidavit of the de facto complainant duly attested by a notary public. In the aforesaid affidavit, it is stated that since the issue has been settled, 2025:KER:28462 Crl.R.P No.4178 of 2008 3 the case has to be compounded and the petitioner has to be acquitted. 3. Having regard to the above development of the case wherein the issue has been amicably settled between the parties, and the de facto complainant is not having any subsisting grievance as against the petitioner, I am of the view that the request for compounding the offence has to be allowed. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed as follows: i) The concurrent findings of conviction and sentence of the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, in ST No.80/2003, and the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, in Crl.Appeal No.431/2006, are hereby set aside. ii) The offence alleged against the petitioner is found to be lawfully compounded between the parties. iii) The petitioner is acquitted under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Sd/- G.GIRISH JUDGE IAP 2025:KER:28462 Crl.R.P No.4178 of 2008 4 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 4178/2008 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES: Annexure Ill THE NOTARIZED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 14.02.2025 SIGNED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT