Allowed

T.P.Chandran v. a.P.Jyothi

Kerala HC24 May 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1103/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition arising under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment after the parties settled the dispute, compounded the offence, and released the accused on liberty.

What did the court decide?

Judgment confirming conviction and sentence set aside; offence compounded under section 147 of the NI Act; accused released at liberty; bail bond cancelled.

T.P.Chandran Vs a.P.Jyothi — 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. 1103 of 2012 ()

¶6

JUDGMENT IN CRA.152/2012 of COURT OF SPL.ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (MARADU CASES), KOZHIKODE

¶7

JUDGMENT IN CC.473/2009 of J.M.F.C.-V, KOZHIKODE

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

T.P.CHANDRAN, S/O.MAMU,

¶10

THANDAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,

¶11

MANNUR RAILWAY GATEMAN, P.O.MANNUR - 673 323, MANNUR AMSOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶13

SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW

¶14

SRI.P.V.ANOOP

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶16

A.P.JYOTHI, S/O.A.P.CHANDU, AMBALI PARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KADALUNDI, KADALUNDI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK - 673 302.

¶17

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR

¶19

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

¶20

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶21

Crl.R.P.No.1103 of 2012

¶22

---------------------------Dated 24^th May, 2012

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The accused in C.C.No.473 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode is the revision petitioner. There is concurrent verdict of conviction against the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for two months imposed on the petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode in C.C.No.473 of 2009 was modified by the Court of Special Additional Sessions Judge (Marad Cases), Kozhikode in Crl.A.No.152 of 2012 as the one for payment of fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It was also directed that the fine amount, if realised, shall be given to the complainant as compensation under section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This revision petition has been filed in the said circumstances.

¶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

¶26

Crl.R.P.No.1103/2012 2

¶27

petitioner. Now, Crl.M.A.No.3822 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 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.

¶28

In the above circumstances, the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act against the revision petitioner is compounded. The judgment against the revision petitioner in Crl.A.No.152 of 2012 of the Court of Special Additional Sessions Judge (Marad Cases), Kozhikode confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode and imposing a fine of Rs.40,000/with default sentence is set aside. Resultantly, it is ordered to set the revision petitioner at liberty. The bail bond stands cancelled.

¶29

TKS

T.P.Chandran v. a.P.Jyothi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P.Chandran v. a.P.Jyothi

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

K.T.Raj Mohanan Vs Reji P.Kurian

Hariyarakakth Noorudheen Vs T. Hajira

Sukumaran.v. Vs Ragesh Kumar R