First accused in C.C.No.426/1999 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, is the revision petitioner herein. The case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein, against the revision petitioner and another, as partners of the firm R.M. Associates, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called 'the Act').
2. After trial, the learned magistrate found both the accused including the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Act and convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for four months each and also to pay a compensation of ₹92,500/-
each to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petitioner filed Crl.Appeal No.314/2003 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, which was made over to the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam, for disposal by the Sessions Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment, allowed the appeal in part, confirming the order of conviction, but reduced the substantive sentence to imprisonment for one month and imposed default sentence of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the revision petitioner, who is the first accused in the lower court.
3. After disposal of the appeal and before filing the revision, the matter has been settled between the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent complainant. They filed Crl.M.A.No.7248/2014 to record compounding and that was allowed today on payment of cost, relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [JT 2010 (4) (S.C.)457] Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. and [2014(4) KHC 115 (S.C.)] Madhya Pradesh State Legal Service Authority v. Prateek Jain and Another and accordingly cost was paid and the application was allowed and permission was granted to compound the case and compounding was recorded.
4. Once the compounding is recorded, it will have the effect of deemed acquittal under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further parties are at liberty to compound the case as against one of the accused also. So that benefit must be given to the revision petitioner.
So the revision is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the court below in C.C.No.426/1999 of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, as modified in Crl.Appeal No.314/2003 of Additional Sessions Court, (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam, as against the revision petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge leveled against him, giving him the benefit of deemed acquittal under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is set at liberty. The bail bond executed by him will stand cancelled. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss