Madras High CourtCRL RC/253/2016disposed of

B.S.Prabhakar Raju v. Mr.B.L.Pavankumar

2016-03-02Honourable Dr. Justice P. Devadass2 pages

Bail Slip Crl.MP No.1762/2016 in Crl.R.C.No.253/2016 The Petitioner/Accused Viz.

B.S.Prabhakar Raju, S/o.Srinivas Raju, was directed to be released in bail as per order of this court in Crl.M.P.No.1762/2016 in Crl.R.C.No.253/2016, dated 16.02.2016.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.03.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS CRL.R.C.No.253 of 2016 and M.P.No.2414 of 2016 B.S.Prabhakar Raju ... Revision Petitioner/Appellant/ Accused.

vs.

B.L.Pavankumar ... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to judgment dated 01.07.2015 made in C.A.No.76 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the judgment dated 17.10.2014 made in S.T.C.No.359 of 2013 on the file of the Fast Track Magistrate Court, Hosur and set aside the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sathiyamoorthy For respondent : Mr.R.Jayaprakash

O R D E R

Revision petitioner, who is the appellant in C.A.No.76 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri and who has been convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 138 of N.I. Act in S.T.C.No.359 of 2013 by the learned Fast Track Magistrate, Hosur has directed this revision.

2. In the Trial Court, he was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to 6 months S.I. and was also directed to a pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under section 357 Cr.P.C.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. On appeal in C.A.No.76 of 2014 confirming the said judgment of the Trial Court, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, dismissed the appeal.

4. Aggrieved, the petitioner had directed this revision under section 397 Cr.P.C. challenging the legality of the conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below.

5. In this Court, the petitioner/accused and the respondent/ complainant have entered into a compromise to compound the offence and joint memo of compromise signed by both parties has also been filed. Both the parties are present in the Court today, who have been identified by their respective counsels. Some concession seems to have been given by the complainant to the revision petitioner. I am satisfied. In the circumstances, the respondent is permitted to compound the offence under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

6. Ordered as under :

(1) Respondent is permitted to compound the offence.

(2) Conviction and sentence recorded by both the Courts below are set aside.

(3) Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is disposed of.

Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vrc To,

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, [Fast Track Court], Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Superintendant, Central Prison, Vellore. +1 cc to Mr.T.Sathiyamoorthy, Advocate, sr.13480 +1 cc to Mr.R.Jayaprakash, Advocate, sr.13549 Crl.R.C.No.253 of 2016 & M.P.No.2414 of 2016 bvr co, kra 14.03.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/