Allowed

E.v.Paulose v. National Small Industries Orporation

Kerala HC13 Jul 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/2326/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was disposed of, and permission to compound the offence allowed, as the parties had settled out of court voluntarily.

What did the court decide?

Permission to compound the offence granted; composition accepted with effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) CrPC; Criminal Revision Petition disposed of.

E.v.Paulose Vs National Small Industries Orporation — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931

¶5

CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2326 OF 2005()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.150/2005 OF SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.556/2001 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM ....................

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED.

¶8

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

¶9

E.V.PAULOSE, ENCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANAMKUZHY, KOMBANAD P.O. PERUMBAVOOR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.J.JAMES SRI.FENIL.T.PAUL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): COMAPLAINANT AND STATE.

¶12

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

¶13

1. NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD., S-67, G.C.D.A. COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, COCHIN 31.

¶14

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

¶15

ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2326 of 2005

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13^th day of July, 2009

¶20

This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions

¶21

Judge, Ernakulam in Crl. Appeal No.150 of 2005 confirming conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”).

¶22

Petitioner and respondent No.1 filed Crl.M.A No.6340 of 2009 reporting settlement and seeking permission to compound the offence.

¶23

It is seen from application No.6340 of 2009 that parties have settled the dispute out of court. There is no reason to think that the composition is not voluntary. Offence under Section 138 of the Act is made compoundable under Section 147 of the Act. Hence permission is granted and Crl.M.A. No.6340 of 2009 is allowed. The composition entered between petitioner and respondent No.1 is accepted and that shall have the effect of acquittal of the petitioner under Section 320(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶24

Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above.

¶25

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶26

vsv

E.v.Paulose v. National Small Industries Orporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.v.Paulose v. National Small Industries Orporation

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

K.C.Shaji Vs State

Nirmalan Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Sreenivasan Vs Vasudevan K.Panthalam

T.Abdu @ Abdutty Vs C.Vijayarajan

Babu Vs State of Kerala

D.K.Rajendran Vs P.K.Sajeendran