Kerala High Court
P.T.Thomas vs M.G.Madhavan Nair on 14 May, 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/26TH POUSHA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2213 of 2004 (B)
---------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.125/2002 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
FAST TRACK COURT-II,ALAPPUZHA DATED 14-05-2004
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 197/1999 of J.M.F.C., RAMANKARI
DATED 18-04-2002
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED 5 & 6::
-----------------------------------------------
1. P.T.THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS,
PALLADANS, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM, CHERTHALA.
2. FRANCIS THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS,
PALLADANS, KOKKOTHAMANGLAM, CHERTHALA.
BY ADVS.SRI.DEEPU THANKAN
SMT.DEEPA DEEPU THANKAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE::
-----------------------------------------------
1. M.G.MADHAVAN NAIR
S/O. JANARDHANAN NAIR,
PAYYAMPALLIL HOUSE,
PUNNAKUNNU, PULINEUNNU, ALAPPUZHA.
2. STATE OF KERALA -
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
*ADDL R3: ANANDAVALLY AMMA, W/O. LATE M.G.MADHAVAN NAIR,
PAYYAMPALLIL HOUSE, PUNNAKKUNNATHUSSERY MURI,
CHAMPAKKULAM VILLAGE.
ADDL.R4: MAYA HARIKUMAR, D/O.LATE M.G. MADHAVAN NAIR,
PAYYAMPALLIL HOUSE, PUNNAKKUNNATHUSSERY MURI,
CHAMPAKKULAM VILLAGE.
ADDL.R5: MANOJ KUMAR, S/O.LATE M.G. MADHAVAN NAIR,
PAYYAMPALLIL HOUSE, PUNNAKKUNNATHUSSERY MURI,
CHAMPAKKULAM VILLAGE.
*(ADDL.R3 TO R5 WERE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD 29.11.2016 IN
CRL.M.A.NO.6206/2012 IN CRL.R.P. 2213/2004)
R, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. DIVYA C. BALAN.
RADDL.3 BY ADV. SMT.SARITHA THOMAS
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 16-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
acd
P.D. RAJAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.2213 of 2004
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2017
ORDER
This revision petition is preferred by the 5th and 6th accused against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.125/2002 of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Alappuzha. They were the accused in C.C. No.197/1999 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankari, which was filed u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act). The learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of 5000/- in default simple imprisonment for three months. Against that, they preferred the above appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Alappuzha, where the learned Judge dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, they preferred this revision petition.
M.A.C.A.No.2213/2004 2
2. When the matter came up for hearing, both parties submitted that they have settled the matter out of Court. The complainant (1st respondent) died on 18.4.2004. Hence, the legal representatives of the complainant (1st respondent)were impleaded as additional respondents in this revision petition. They have settled the matter with the revision petitioner and filed Crl.M.A. No.100/2017. Additional respondents 3 and 4 authorised the 5th additional respondent to compromise the matter on behalf of them. An authorisation letter has been produced to that effect. When parties are settling the matter, this Court has no objection in allowing the compromise petition. According to Section 147 of the N.I.Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, every offence punishable under the NI Act shall be compoundable. According to Section 320(6), a High Court or Court of Sessions while exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such M.A.C.A.No.2213/2004 3 person is competent to compound under this section. When the composition of offence under the Section is made, it shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. In view of the compromise, the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankari under Section 138 of N.I.Act are set aside. Accused is acquitted and set at liberty. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babulal (AIR 2010 SC 1907), the revision petitioner is directed to pay Rs.500/- to the High Court Legal Service Committee within one week from today.
Revision petition is disposed of as above.
P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.
acd