Disposed

Kishore Kumar v. P.K.Unnikrishnan

Kerala HC23 Jul 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/850/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition against a conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court observed that the parties had settled the matter under section 147 Cr.P.C. and held that the composition has the effect of an acquittal under section 320(8) Cr.P.C., refunding any money paid by the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition is disposed of. Money paid by the appellant shall be refunded.

Kishore Kumar Vs P.K.Unnikrishnan — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2007 / 1ST SRAVANA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 850 of 2005()

¶6

----------------------------CRA.131/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.1204/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

KISHOREKUMAR, S/O.MOOSARY SUBRAMANIAN, THRIKOOR HOUSE, PULARI LANE, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL

¶11

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶12

¶13

P.K.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, PULIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR.

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

Crl. R.P. No. 850 OF 2005 A

¶19

Dated this the 23^rd day of July, 2007

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The revision petitioner, who was the accused in C.C.No.1204/2001 on the file of the JFCM-II, Thrissur for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the trial court for the said offence.

¶22

Pending this revision, the parties have settled the matter and have filed Crl.M.A.No.8017/2007 under section 147 of the Act for recording the composition entered into by them. The said petition has been signed by both the revision petitioner 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 petitioner pursuant to orders, if any, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to the revision petitioner.

¶23

This revision petition is disposed of as above.

¶24

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶25

aks

Kishore Kumar v. P.K.Unnikrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Kumar v. P.K.Unnikrishnan

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

Sai Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

M.Musthafa Vs Food Inspector

Anitha Kumari Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Chellappan Vs John J.Pakalommattom

K.Vijayan Vs M.v.Siva Kumar

Rajendraprasad Vs State of Kerala