Thankam Vinu v. Chaithanya Enterprises (Kuri Division) and State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/20TH CHAITHRA 1935 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 448 of 2013 ---------------------------- [AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA.581/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM DATED 8.1.2010 & AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC.40/2008 of THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE- II, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 8.7.2009] REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ THANKAM VINU, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.VINU, 11/02, NADHAN VALAPPU THAMARAPARAMBU, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682 001. BY ADV.SRI.L.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN SMT.S.SREEDEVI(ALP) RESPONDENTS/REPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(S): ------------------------------------- 1. CHAITHANYA ENTERPRISES (KURI DIVISION), KANJOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.K.V.VENUGOPAL, AGED 49, S/O.VASUDEVAN, NEDUMPILLY, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE-682 002. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.LIJU STEPHEN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 448 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 10[th] day of April, 2013 ## **ORDER** The revision petitioner is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act and the trial court as well as the lower appellate court found that the accused is guilty and accordingly she is convicted and sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No. 2310/2013, this court allowed the parties to compound the offence and accordingly, the composition of the said offence is recorded. The revision petitioner has also complied with the condition of paying cost, as fixed by this Court, on the basis of the guideline issued by the Apex Court in the decision reported in **Damodar.S.Prabhu** v. **Sayed Babalal.H.** [JT 2010(4) SC 457]. In the light of the composition of the offence between the contesting ## **Crl.R.P.No. 448 of 2013** ## **-:2:-** parties, I am of the view that this Crl. R.P can be allowed, acquitting the accused in terms of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 8.7.2009 in C.C.No.40 of 2008 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perumbavoor and the judgment dated 8.1.2010 in Crl.A.No.581 of 2009 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge (ADHOC-II), Ernakulam and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against her in the above case and she is set at liberty. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** MBS/ ## **Crl.R.P.No. 448 of 2013** ## **-:3:-** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.A.No. 2310 of 2013 in Crl.R.P.No. 448 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 10[th] day of April, 2013. ## **ORDER** This is an application filed under Section 147 of the N.I.Act with a prayer that the compounding of the offence against the first petitioner may be recorded and accordingly, she may be acquitted. 2. I have verified the above petition which is signed by both the first petitioner and the second petitioner who are respectively the revision petitioner/accused and the complainant. 3. It is stated in paragraph 2 of the petition that the matter was settled out of court paying the cheque amount to the second petitioner/complainant and thus compounded the offence. The first petitioner is the revision petitioner, who ## **Crl.R.P.No. 448 of 2013** ## **-:4:-** preferred the above revision petition challenging her conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act., since the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction recorded by the trial court. As the parties have settled the matter, this Court need not stand in the way of such a settlement. More over, in the present case, as ordered by another learned Judge of this Court on 2.4.2013 in Crl.M.A.No.2310 of 2013, the petitioner has already deposited a sum of `5000/- in the KELSA as evidenced by the receipt dated 5.4.2013 issued from the KELSA which is produced as per memo dated 6.4.2013. Therefore, the petitioner has complied with the direction in terms of the decision reported in **Damodar.S.Prabhu** v. **Sayed Babalal.H.** [JT 2010(4) SC 457]. Therefore, the above petition is allowed and the composition of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act for which the first **Crl.R.P.No. 448 of 2013** ## **-:5:-** petitioner/revision petitioner stands convicted, is recorded. **V.K.MOHANAN,** **JUDGE** MBS/ **Crl.R.P.No. 448 of 2013** **-:6:-** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **--------------------------------------------Crl.M.A.No.7087 of 2010 in Unnumbered Crl.R.P.No. of 2010 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 2010** ## **O R D E R** This is an application to condone the delay of 1735 days occurred in filing the Crl.R.P. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman and after the impugned judgment, the matter has been settled out of court and a compounding petition has also been filed along with the revision petition and there is no contention on merit. 3. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, especially when the contesting parties settled the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to settle the matter and to redress his grievance. ## **Crl.R.P.No. 448 of 2013** ## **-:7:-** In the result, the delay of 1735 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition is condoned and the Registry is directed to number the Crl.R.P. **V.K.Mohanan, Judge.** MBS/ ## **Crl.R.P.No. 448 of 2013** **-:8:-**