The offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be compounded when the parties reach a lawful settlement, allowing the court to set aside the conviction and sentence.

ORDER :

C.S.Dias, J.

The revision petition is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment in Crl.A No.519/2010 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam, (Appellate Court), confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner in C.C 464/2009 of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi,(Trial Court) finding the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 (in short ‘Act").

2. The second respondent had filed the complaint against the revision petitioner alleging him to have committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

3. The learned Magistrate, after analysing the materials on record, convicted the revision petitioner for the above offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,26,925/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner filed Crl.A No.519/2010 before the Appellate Court.

5. The Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the materials placed on record, by the impugned judgment confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence by directing the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs.5,30,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

6. It is aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the courts below, the present revision petition is filed.

7. Heard; Sri.Babu.S.Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.Biju Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

8. Today, when the revision petition was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing on both sides submitted that the subject matter in dispute between the parties has been settled as per the Memorandum of Settlement Agreement executed by them and counter-signed by their respective counsel before the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court of Kerala on 27.10.2023. As per the Agreement, the revision petitioner has paid the second respondent a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards the full and final settlement of all her claims in the above complaint.

9. I have perused the Memorandum of Settlement Agreement and found the same to be in accordance with law.

10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar and after perusing the Memorandum of Settlement Agreement executed between the parties, I am of the definite view that the offence committed by the revision petitioner can be compounded by invoking the powers of this Court under Sec.147 of the N.I.Act r/w 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, I am inclined to allow the revision petition, by way of composition.

In the result,

(i) The revision petition is allowed;

(ii) The conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner in Crl.A No. 519/2010 by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-I) Ernakulam and in C.C No.464/2009 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, are set aside by way of composition under Section 147 of the N.I Act read with 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(iii) The revision petitioner is acquitted and set at liberty.

(iv) The bail bonds executed by the revision petitioner and his sureties shall stand discharged.