Allowed

Kairali Markeeting & Processing Co.Op.So v. Thomas Chandy

Kerala HC11 Jul 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/1055/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioners challenged conviction under Section 138 NI Act. The court allowed the revision as the parties had settled the matter via composition recorded under Cr.P.C. 147, which operates as an acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is disposed of due to the settlement evidenced by the recorded composition, which operates as an acquittal.

Kairali Markeeting & Processing Co.Op.So Vs Thomas Chandy — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2007 / 20TH ASHADHA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1055 of 2007()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.350/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), ALAPPUZHA ST.160/2000 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

KAIRALI MARKETING & PROCESSING CO-OP. SOCIETY LT ZILLA COURT WARD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

K.K.PANKAJAKSHAN, PRESIDENT KAIRALI MARKETING & PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.A.986, ZILLA COURT WARD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶11

SHAIN KUMAR, SECRETARY, - DO -

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶14

¶15

THOMAS CHANDY, KALATHIL PARAMBIL, CHENNANKARI WEST, KAINAKARY THROUGH HIS POWER-OF-ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.P.FRANCIS, KOCHUVEETIL, NEAR CCRI, KALAVOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶16

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

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.VISHNURAJ SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

Crl.R.P. No. 1055 OF 2007 B

¶21

Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2007

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The revision petitioners, who were the accused in S.T.No.160/2000 on the file of the JFCM, Alappuzha for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them concurrently by the trial court for the said offence.

¶24

Pending this revision, the parties have settled the matter and have filed Crl.M.A.No.7465/2007 under section 147 of the Act for recording the composition entered into by them. The said petition has been signed by both the revision petitioners as well as the complainant and their respective counsels. The composition is recorded and it will have the effect of an acquittal within the meaning of section 320(8) Cr.P.C. Money, if any, paid by the revision petitioners pursuant to orders, if any, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to the revision petitioners.

¶25

This revision petition is disposed of as above.

¶26

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶27

aks

Kairali Markeeting & Processing Co.Op.So v. Thomas Chandy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kairali Markeeting & Processing Co.Op.So v. Thomas Chandy

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

C.Abooty Vs O.Mommad Koya

P.K.Vasavan Vs Chakkalamannil Chitty Fund

Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Salamma Mathew Vs State of Kerala

M.L.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

M.Shamsudheen Vs State of Kerala