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
6 paragraphs · 267 wordsA. Badharudeen, J
This is a revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging conviction and sentence entered into by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Ernakulam in S.T. No.6635/2012 and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Ernakulam as per judgment dated 07.05.2022 in Crl.A. No.204/2019.
As the matter has been amicably settled, the revision petitioner as well as Adv. Ieans Chamakkala the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/the original complainant jointly filed affidavit and Crl.M.A.No.5 of 2023 to compound the offence along with the revision petition. They also filed Crl.M.A.No.6 of 2023 to grant exemption from payment of 15% of cheque amount as cost for compounding the offence, highlighting the financial crisis of the revision petitioner.
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. 5 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, and his bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.