Allowed

Muralidharan v. Venkidasubramanian

Kerala HC14 Dec 2006Crl.Rev.Pet/4464/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition by an accused against conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was allowed. The court granted permission to compound the offence after parties reported an out-of-court settlement and payment of compensation, resulting in the applicant's acquittal and release.

What did the court decide?

Rev. Petitioner acquitted and set at liberty; offence compounded. Crl.Rev.Pet. and Crl.M.Appl. allowed.

Muralidharan Vs Venkidasubramanian — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2006 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1928

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4464 of 2006()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.498/2004 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.25/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

MURALIDHARAN, S/O. PONNU NAIR, 'PONNUS', KUNNACHI, ELAPULLY, PALAKKAD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶11

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/NON-PARTY

¶12

¶13

VENKIDASUBRAMANIAN, S/O. KYLASA IYER, KAILASATHIL HOUSE, KALLAKKODE ROAD, NALLEPULLY, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.HEMA, J.

¶19

-----------------------------------------CRL.R.P.NO.4464 of 2006

¶20

-----------------------------------------

¶21

Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2006

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.25 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chittur. He was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence. The order to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- was also confirmed. This revision is filed against the said conviction, sentence and order.

¶24

At the time of hearing, learned counsel for both sides submitted that a petition as Crl.M.Appl.12926 of 2006 is filed for compounding the offence. It is also submitted by both sides that the matter is settled out of court amicably between the parties and the amount is also paid by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the first respondent. On hearing both sides and on going through the averments in the petition , I am satisfied that this is a fit case to grant permissin to compound the offence.

¶25

In the result, the revision petitioner is acquitted of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as offence is compounded. He is set at liberty forthwith.

¶26

Crl.M.Appl.12926 of 2006 and the Crl.Revision petition are allowed.

¶27

vgs.

¶28

K.HEMA, JUDGE

Muralidharan v. Venkidasubramanian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muralidharan v. Venkidasubramanian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mujeeb Vs State of Kerala

M.a.Ahamed Shafiullah Vs M/S.Mannualsons Trading Company & Anothe

Yya.Ahamed Shafiullah Vs M/S.Mannualsons Trading Company

Jose Vs State of Kerala

Girijavallabhan Nair Vs State of Kerala

M.v.Murshid Ahammed Vs K.v.Abdul Azeez