Kerala High Court
Abdul Salam vs Shamsudeen on 6 September, 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/9TH BHADRA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1400 of 2006 ( )
---------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.305/2003 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT-III), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 06-09-2005
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 59/2001 of JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE -II,ATTINGAL DATED 07-01-2003
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
----------------------------------------
ABDUL SALAM,S/O.MEERA SAHIB,CHIRAYIL VEEDU,
(CHIRAYARIKATHU VEEDU),MOHANAPURAM,SABEER MANZIL,
KALLOOR WARD,MELETHONNAKKAL VILLAGE,KOITHOORKONAM
P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.(ADDRESS GIVEN IN
THE COMPLAINT IS:ABDUL SALAM, S/O.MEERA SAYU,JAZEENA
MANZIL, KABARADI, PULIVEEDU WARD,
KEEZHTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE,
MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.C.MADHAVAN
SRI.P.RAMESAN (KANIAPURAM)
SRI.S.VINODKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
----------------------------------------------
1. SHAMSUDEEN,
S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN,, KUZHIVILA S.A.M.MANZIL,, KABARADI,
PULIVEEDU WARD,, KEEZHTHONAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.HUSAIN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 31-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
acd
P.D. RAJAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.1400 of 2006
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2016
ORDER
This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.305/2003 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court III), Thiruvananthapuram. He was the accused in C.C. No.59/2001 of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Attingal, which was filed u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act). He was convicted u/s.138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and compensation of 2 lakhs u/s.357(3) Cr.P.C. with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Against that, he preferred the above criminal appeal, where the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to till rising of the court and to pay compensation of 2 lakhs, in Crl. R.P.No.1400/2006 2 default simple imprisonment for three months. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred this revision petition.
2. The complainant's case in the trial Court is that the accused borrowed a sum of 2 lakh and in discharge of that debt, he issued Ext.P1 cheque. When Ext.P1 was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for the reason of funds insufficient. The complainant demanded the amount by giving a notice in writing. Even after notice, there was no payment, hence the complaint in the trial Court. During trial, the complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P6. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. He examined DW1. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused.
3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the first respondent submitted that the parties have settled the matter out of Court through the intervention of the mediators and filed Crl. M.A. 5438/2016, in which both parties and both counsel Crl. R.P.No.1400/2006 3 have signed. According to Section 147 N.I. Act, notwithstanding anything contained in Cr.P.C, 1973, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C empowers the High Court to compound any offence in exercise of its revisional power against such person, who is competent to compound the offence. When offence is compounded, accused is entitled to get an acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.
4. In view of the settlement, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is set aside. The accused/revision petitioner is acquitted and set at liberty. In view of the decision of Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babulal (AIR 2010 SC 1907) the revision petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- to the High Court Legal Service Committee within one week.
Revision petition is disposed of as above.
P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.
acd