AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 238 wordsCrl.M.A.No.2/2021 has been filed jointly by the revision petitioner and the second respondent herein, who is the complainant before the trial court, praying for granting permission to compound the offence and recording the composition.
This Court as per order in C.M.A.No.5 of 2021 waived the costs to be deposited by the revision petitioner before the Kerala State Legal Services Authority as a condition precedent to grant permission to compound the offence as held by the Apex Court in Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal [2010 (2) KLT 587 (SC)].
The offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable under Section 147 of the N.I.Act. Therefore, since the matter has been settled, it is only just and proper to grant permission to the parties to compound the offence. Accordingly permission stands granted and the composition stands recorded, which is having the effect of acquittal under Section 320 (8) of Cr.PC.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the revision petitioner stands acquitted for the said offence. The bail bond of the revision petitioner stands discharged.
If any amount had been already deposited by the revision petitioner before the trial court in connection with this case, the said amount shall be released to the revision petitioner by the trial court as requested in this compounding application.