Partly allowed

Pavithran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Oct 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1027/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court modified the sentence in a cheque-bouncing case where the accused and complainant settled. It reduced the imprisonment term to discharge upon raising court fee while maintaining the fine, citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab.

What did the court decide?

Imprisonment modified to one till raising the court; fine to stand; petitioners to undergo sentence on 1.11.2012.

Pavithran Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/27TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1027 of 2007

¶6

CRA.276/2006 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.437/2004 of J.M.F.C., RAMANKARI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. PAVITHRAN

¶9

PUSHPAMANGALAM VEEDU, KUNNUMMA MURI

¶10

KUNNUMMA VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK.

¶11

2. MANGALAM, S/O.CHELLAPPAN,

¶12

MANGALAM VADAKKE CHIRA VEEDU, KUNNUMMA MURI

¶13

KUNNUMMA VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK.

¶14

3. MADHU, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, MANGALAM

¶15

VADAKKE CHIRA VEEDU, KUNNUMMA MURI, KUNNUMMA VILLAGE

¶16

KUTTANAD TALUK.

¶17

BY ADVS.SRI.R.BINDU SASTHAMANGALAM SRI.M.SUNIL KUMAR

¶18

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶19

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

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL (KUMMANAM)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

S. Siri Jagan, J.

¶23

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶24

Crl. R.P. No. 1027 of 2007

¶25

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19^th day of October, 2012.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioners are accused in C.C.No. 437/2004 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary. The prosecution was one under Section 365 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate convicted the petitioners and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for eight months each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. Out of the fine amount, Rs.2000/- was directed to be paid to PW5, who was the de facto complainant. The petitioners filed Crl. A. No. 276/2006 before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)-II, Alappuzha, who dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate. The petitioners are challenging the judgments of the courts below.

¶28

The parties have today filed Crl. M.A. No. 4909/2012 wherein both parties agree that they have settled their differences between themselves and the de facto complainant have no objection in passing appropriate orders in accordance with the settlement.

¶29

I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. who points out that the offence is not a compoundable offence.

¶30

The Supreme Court has, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , 2012(4) KLT 108 (S.C), held that where the offences are personal in nature, it would be competent for the High Court to pass orders in accordance with the settlement arrived at

¶31

Crl. R.P. No. 1027 of 2007 -: 2 :-

¶32

between the parties. Following that decision, I dispose of this Criminal R.P. as follows:

¶33

The sentence of imprisonment is modified to one till raising of the court. The sentence of fine would stand. The petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate to undergo the sentence of imprisonment on 1.11.2012.

¶34

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶35

Tds/

¶36

[True copy]

¶37

P.S to Judge.

Pavithran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavithran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Karunakaran Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Fathima K Vs Manoj Mv

Babeesh Vs the Managing Director, Sidco

V.a.Sobhanakumari Vs Smt.Roopakala Jagath

T.Kallyani Vs Excise Inspector,Hosdurg Excise Range