Disposed

T.G.Raju v. K.C.Thankachan

Kerala HC25 Mar 2010Crl.Rev.Pet/1054/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision challenging conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour. Upon a pending settlement between parties, the court recorded the composition under the Negotiable Instruments Act, granting it the effect of an acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The composition entered between parties was recorded with the effect of an acquittal under Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C.; money deposited shall be refunded.

T.G.Raju Vs K.C.Thankachan — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1054 of 2010()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.199/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶7

CC.1013/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE),

¶8

KOTTAYAM

¶9

REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶10

¶11

T.G.RAJU, S/O.GOVINDHAN,

¶12

THAZHACHAYAYIL HOUSE, KURICHY P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

¶14

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶15

¶16

K.C.THANKACHAN, KOZHIMATTATHIL HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶17

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

¶18

ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN FOR R1

¶19

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶22

- - - - Crl.R.P. No. 1054 of 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 25-03-2010

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The accused in C.C. No. 1013 of 2004 on the file of the J.F.C.M. II (Mobile), Kottayam, 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 courts below.

¶25

Pending this revision, the parties have settled the matter. Crl.M.A.No. 3154 of 2010 has been filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 seeking permission to record the composition entered into between the revision petitioner and the complainant. The said petition has been signed by both the revision petitioner as well as the complainant and their respective counsels. In the light of this development, the aforementioned composition is recorded and it will have the effect of an acquittal of the revision petitioner within the meaning of Sec. 320 (8) Cr.P.C. Money, if any, deposited by the revision petitioner before the trial court pursuant to the orders, if any, passed by the superior courts shall be refunded to the revision petitioner/accused.

¶26

This Crl. R.P. is disposed of as above.

¶27

V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE)

¶28

ani.

T.G.Raju v. K.C.Thankachan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.G.Raju v. K.C.Thankachan

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

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Vineeth Vs State through S.H.O.,Taliparamba P.Stn.

Dr.Nizar Vs Si of Police

Dhanesh Vs State of Kerala

Balan Vs State of Kerala

N.Gopinathan Pillai Vs State of Kerala