The accused in CC.No.107/2002 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the revision petitioner herein. 2. The case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent-complainant against the revision petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the Act). After evidence, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty under section 138 of the Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of `.1,05,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1½ months. It is further ordered that if the fine amount is realised, the amount of `.1,04,000/- to be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 357 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed Crl.Appeal No.406/2004 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which was made over to Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, for disposal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal in part confirming the order of conviction and fine and direction to pay compensation out of fine but reduced the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the revision petitioner.
3. After the disposal of the appeal by the Sessions Court, and before filing of the revision, the matter has been settled between the parties and they filed Crl.M.A.No.6615/2014, to record compounding and this court relying on the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu V Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457] and followed in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority V. Prateek Jain and Another [2014(4) KHC 115 (SC)] allowed the application on payment of cost and the cost was paid and compounding was recorded. Once, the compounding is recorded, then it will have the effect of deemed acquittal under section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that benefit must be given to the revision petitioner.
4. So, the revision is allowed and order of conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the revision petitioner under section 138 of the Act are hereby set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him, giving him the benefit of deemed acquittal under section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner is set at liberty. The bail bond if any executed by the revision petitioner will stand cancelled.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge