High Court of KeralaCrl.Rev.Pet/1390/2015allowed

P.S. Georgekutty v. T.K. Antony

2015-10-306 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/8TH KARTHIKA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1390 of 2015 () -------------------------------- CRL.A 613/2005 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-1, KOTTAYAM CC 265/2003 of J.M.F.C.-I,KANJIRAPPALLY REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

-------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. GEORGEKUTTY, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.P.P.SAMUAL, FORMER VILLAGE ASSISTANT PUTHANPARAMPIL HOUSE PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.H.SHAJAHAN SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.

T.K. ANTONY, AGED 72 YEARS CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE PONKUNNAM KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 502.

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.R.REKHESH SHARMA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.R.GITHESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.1390 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of October 2015

O R D E R

Crl.M.A. No. 6127 of 2015 has been filed by the first respondent herein, who is the complainant before the trial court, with the signature of the learned advocates on both sides, stating that the matter has been settled between the parties. The prayer in the said application is to permit the parties to compound the offence. The offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act is compoundable under Sec. 147 of the N.I.Act. Since the complainant has filed application stating that the matter has been settled, the signature of the accused in the application is not necessary to permit the

: 2 :

parties to compound the offence, particularly when the accused is in custody. The learned counsel for the accused/ revision petitioner has also put his signature in the application. This Court has exempted the revision petitioner from payment of deposit before the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, as the revision petitioner is in jail. Since the matter has been settled between the parties, it is only just and proper to grant permission to compound the offence and accordingly, permission stands granted and the composition stands recorded, which is having the effect of acquittal under Section 320 (8) Cr.P.C.

2. In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed, acquitting the revision petitioner under section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

: 3 :

Since the revision petitioner is in custody, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not necessary in any other case.

Sd/- B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE dl/2.11.2015 // True Copy // PA to Judge

: 4 :

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

O R D E R

The revision petitioner, namely, Shri.P.S.Georgekutty, aged 55 years, s/o.P.P. Samual, Puthanparampil House, Pampady, Kottyam district, who is the accused in C.C. No.265 of 2003 on the files of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class -1, Kanjirappally, has been acquitted by this Court under Section 320(8) of the Code for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the Superintendent of the jail

: 5 :

concerned is directed to release the above accused forthwith, if his presence is not required in any other case. The Registry is directed to communicate the gist of the order to the Superintendent of the prison concerned to comply with the direction in this order.

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE dl