Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 354 (KER)

P. K. Vijayan v. Annakutty Mathew

2022-04-12

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

body2022
ORDER : The revision petitioner, the accused in CC No. 885 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha, which arose on the basis of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'N.I. Act') by the first respondent herein. 2. The first respondent alleged that the revision petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs.23,000/-and had issued a cheque for the said amount towards the discharge of liability and the cheque when presented for encashment was dishonoured for 'want of funds' and accordingly proceedings were initiated. On receipt of the summons the accused entered appearance and pleaded not guilty but having failed to appear, thereafter, coercive steps were taken and the case was transferred to the long pending register. On 19.12.2003 he was arrested and produced and later the accused filed an application with an intention to plead guilty, which was allowed by the trial court. Consequently, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. It is also ordered that if the fine amount is realised, it will be given to the complainant as compensation under section 357 C.P.C. 3. Though an appeal was carried against the said order as Crl.A.No.277 of 2004 before the Court of Session, Ernakulam, the conviction was confirmed and the sentence was modified to one as simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay compensation of Rs.26,000/-under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. 4. Along with the revision petition Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2022 is filed jointly by the revision petitioner-accused and the first respondent-complainant seeking permission to compound the offence. In the said application it is stated that the entire issue has been settled between them by paying the entire amount. 5. The offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is compoundable under Section 147 of the N.I.Act. In the said application it is stated that the entire issue has been settled between them by paying the entire amount. 5. The offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is compoundable under Section 147 of the N.I.Act. Further, this Court is vested with the power to permit compounding under Section 320 (6) Cr.P.C. Considering that the entire amount has been paid, I am inclined to allow the request for compounding, which has the effect of acquittal under section 320 (8) of Cr.P.C. Consequently, the revision petition is only to be allowed. 6. In the result, the Criminal revision petition is allowed. The judgments in C.C. No.885 of 2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha and Criminal Appeal No.277 of 2004 of the District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam are set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted. The bail bond of the revision petitioner and sureties stands discharged.