Allowed

K.T.Raj Mohanan v. Reji P.Kurian

Kerala HC24 May 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1048/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision petition challenging an appeal judgment confirming conviction for cheque bouncing under section 138 NI Act. The petitioner and complainant settled and obtained payment. The High Court compounded the offence, quashed the judgment, and set the accused at liberty.

What did the court decide?

The offence is compounded; the judgment confirming conviction and sentence is set aside; the accused is set at liberty; the bail bond is cancelled.

K.T.Raj Mohanan Vs Reji P.Kurian — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2012/3RD JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1048 of 2012 ()

¶6

JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO.475/2003 of Ist ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD DIVIION JUDGMENT IN ST.NO.4634/2000 of J.M.F.C., OTTAPPALAM

¶7

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

¶8

K.T.RAJ MOHANAN

¶9

S/O.DEVAKI AMMA, AGED 49 YEARS, KIZHAKKEKKARA THEKKETHIL, P.O.KOTTAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

REJI P.KURIAN

¶13

S/O.P.V.KURYAKOSE, PULLELIL, KOTTAPPURAM DESOM

¶14

KARIMPUZHA VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK

¶15

PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679513.

¶16

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶17

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

BY ADV. SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF FOR R1

¶19

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMACHANDRAN FOR R2

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶22

Crl.R.P.No.1048 of 2012 ---------------------------Dated 24^th May, 2012

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The accused in S.T.No.4634 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottappalam is the revision petitioner. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad Division in Crl.A.No.475 of 2003 confirming the conviction and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay an amount of Rs.90,000/- as compensation to the complainant under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposed on the revision petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶25

Obviously, it is the failure on the part of the revision petitioner to discharge the liability towards the first respondent despite the receipt of the statutory notice and the expiry of the statutorily prescribed period that led to the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Now, Crl.M.A.No.3648 of 2012 has been jointly filed by the revision petitioner and the first respondent-complainant stating that the dispute involved in the criminal case has been settled in between them and the first respondent-complainant obtained the amount to his full satisfaction. In the circumstances, the offence against the revision

¶26

Crl.R.P.No.1048/2012

¶27

¶28

petitioner may be compounded under section 147 of the N.I. Act, it is submitted by the learned counsel on both sides. The offence alleged against the revision petitioner under section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable in terms of section 147 of the N.I.Act.

¶29

In the above circumstances, the offence under section 138 of

¶30

the N.I. Act against the revision petitioner is compounded. The judgment against the revision petitioner in Crl.A.No.475 of 2003 of the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad Division confirming the conviction and sentence imposed as per judgment in S.T.No.4634 of 2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottappalam is set aside. Resultantly, it is ordered to set the revision petitioner at liberty. The bail bond stands cancelled.

¶31

Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge

¶32

C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶33

TKS

K.T.Raj Mohanan v. Reji P.Kurian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T.Raj Mohanan v. Reji P.Kurian

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

M.v.Varghese Vs K.G.Mohanlal, Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Jijo Vs Mathew

Prafullachandran Nair Vs the Commandant General

T.P.Chandran Vs a.P.Jyothi

Hariyarakakth Noorudheen Vs T. Hajira

Sukumaran.v. Vs Ragesh Kumar R