Kerala High Court
Sivaprasad vs Saleem on 23 February, 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/22ND PHALGUNA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1777 of 2006 ( )
---------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 5/2005 of I ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 23-02-2006
AGAINST JUDGMENT IN ST 2171/2001 of J.M.F.C.-I,KOZHIKODE
DATED 30.12.2004
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------------
SIVAPRASAD, S/O.PRABHAKARAN,
"KAILASAM", KARAPARAMBA,, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
------------------------------------
1. SALEEM, S/O.SAIDU,
THAHIRA MANZIL, PALAZHI ROAD, POTTAMMAL,
NELLIKKODE,, KOZHIKODE.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. DIVYA. C. BALAN.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 13-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
acd
P.D. RAJAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No. 1777 of 2006
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of March, 2017
ORDER
This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.5/2005 of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. He was the accused in S.T. No.2171/2001 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode, 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 three months and directed to pay 3,25,000/- u/s.357(3) Cr.P.C, in default simple imprisonment for three months. Against that, he preferred the above appeal before I Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode, where the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred Crl.R.P.No.1777/2006 2 this revision petition.
2. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent submitted that the parties have settled the matter out of court for 2,25,000/-. The revision petitioner paid the entire amount and filed Crl.M.A.No.1458/2017. 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 N.I. Act shall be compoundable. According to Section 320(6), a High Court or Court of Sessions in exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such 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.
Crl.R.P.No.1777/2006 3
In view of the compromise, the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode 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. The revision petitioner had already deposited 45,000/- in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode as per the direction of this Court. If such deposit is made, the revision petitioner is at liberty to withdraw that amount.
Revision petition is disposed of as above.
P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.
acd