S K JOY Vs. K G JAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioner is accused in C.C.No.65 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Neyyattinkara and appellant in Crl.A.No.152 of 1995 on the file of the First Addl. Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. He was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month by the trial court by judgment dated April 26, 1995. On appeal by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated June 30, 2001 confirmed the conviction of the revision petitioner under section 138 of the Act, but modified the substantive sentence to simple imprisonment for one month and retained the order to pay the compensation and the default sentence. Now the accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE case of the first respondent/complainant, as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint was that the accused borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the complainant and to discharge that debt the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated December 23, 1993 which when presented for collection was returned dishonoured for want of sufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner in the bank and that in spite of notice Ext.P3 dated January 3, 1994 the accused did not repay the amount. THErefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the trial court under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) WHEN the revision petition came up for hearing today, it is brought to my notice that the matter has been settled and a compromise petition was filed before the lower appellate court as Crl.M.P. No.2780/2001. A copy of the said petition was produced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court. The records of the lower appellate court were called for and on verification of those records, the above facts were found to be correct. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also produced a copy of the receipt for having paid the entire cheque amount to the complainant. Though notice was received by the 1st respondent/complainant, he did not appear. Therefore, the petition seeking permission to compound the offence is allowed and the offence is compounded. That being so, the revision petition has to be allowed and the accused has to be acquitted.