Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1005 (MAD)

T. Radhakrishnan v. Maria Devisingamony

2015-02-18

M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2015
JUDGMENT:- 1. The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.No.2208 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel and it was filed by the respondent seeking prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 14.12.2007, has convicted the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the revision petitioner filed the appeal in C.A.No.10 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil and the said appeal was also dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and hence, the present revision is filed. 3. The respective learned Counsel for the parties would submit that subsequently, a compromise has been reached between the parties in a civil Court decree and hence, the respondent/ complainant is having no claim over the said amount and also a Joint Compromise Memo, dated 30.01.2015, has been filed to that effect. 4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that while suspending the sentence of imprisonment, vide order dated 04.02.2011, passed in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 in Crl.R.C(MD)No.81 of 2011, this Court has directed the revision petitioner herein to deposit a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Five Thousand only) to the credit of S.T.C.No.2208 of 2005 on the file of the trial Court and the said order has also been complied with and the amount deposited continues to be in deposit. 5. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that since the entire amount due and payable as per the civil Court decree has been paid and settled and hence, he may be permitted to withdraw the said sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Five Thousand only) lying to the credit of S.T.C.No.2208 of 2005 on the file of the trial Court. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that since the Joint Compromise Memo, dated 30.01.2015, has been filed, appropriate orders may be passed. 7. The revision petitioner/accused as well as the respondent/complainant are also present before this Court and they would state that they fully understood the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, dated 30.01.2015 and settled the issue between them amicably. 8. 7. The revision petitioner/accused as well as the respondent/complainant are also present before this Court and they would state that they fully understood the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, dated 30.01.2015 and settled the issue between them amicably. 8. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, speaks about the compounding of offence and once the offence is compounded, it will have the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. 9. In the light of the Joint Compromise Memo, dated 30.01.2015, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil, in C.A.No.10 of 2008, dated 23.12.2010, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, in S.T.C.No.2208 of 2005, dated 14.12.2007, is set aside and the revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him and the fine amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioner, is directed to be refunded to him and the bail bonds executed by him shall stand terminated. The above said sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Five Thousand only) lying to the credit of S.T.C.No.2208 of 2005 on the file of the trial Court, deposited by the revision petitioner, in pursuance of the order dated 04.02.2011, passed by this Court in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 in Crl.R.C(MD)No.81 of 2011, shall be refunded to him.