Joseph Varghese @ Binoy vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

This is a revision petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. challenging conviction and sentence entered into by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam as per judgment dated 30.10.2018 in S.T.No. 674 of 2016 and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II (Special), Kottayam, as per judgment dated 19.08.2020 in Crl. Appeal No. 185 of 2018.

As the matter has been amicably settled, the revision petitioner as well as the second respondent/the original complainant jointly filed Crl. M.A. No.1 of 2023 to compound the offence along with the revision petition. Adv. Sri. Alex George appearing for the complainant also conceded the settlement. They also filed Crl. M.A. No.4 of 2023 for waiver of cost for compounding the offence.

Since the grounds raised seeking exemption to deposit the cost found to be convincing, deposit of cost stands waived.

Compounding an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’) is permissible at any stage, since the same is a deemed offence. Therefore, there is no reason to disallow the compounding petition. Since the parties settled the matter, the compounding has the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, compounding as sought for in Crl.M.A.No. 1 of 2023 is allowed. In the result, this revision petition stands allowed as compounded and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court as well as the appellate court under Section 138 of the N.I.Act stand set aside and the revision petitioner/accused is set at liberty, forthwith.

In view of compounding of the offence, the revision petitioner, who is in custody in execution of the impugned order, shall be released forthwith. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Kottayam, to release the petitioner on production of a copy of this order, unless his custody is not required in any other crime.