Allowed

K.K.Ani @ Anil v. P.S.Bhaskaran

Kerala HC14 Jun 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1156/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court allowed the petition as the offence was compounded between the accused and the complainant after the conviction, leading to the setting aside of the conviction, sentence, and appeal judgment.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. 66 of 2009 and the judgment in Crl.A.No.120 of 2012 were set aside. The bail bond was cancelled. The revision pe

K.K.Ani @ Anil Vs P.S.Bhaskaran — 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 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/24TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1156 of 2012 () ------------------------------CC.66/2009 of J.M.F.C.-II, VAIKOM

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶7

K.K.ANI @ ANIL KIZHAKKECHIRA HOUSE, CHEMMANATHUKARA, VAIKOM VILLAGE VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP

¶9

SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

P.S.BHASKARAN

¶12

MADAPPALLY MANTHOLY COLONY, THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE

¶13

FROM PANAMBUKADU, VADAKKETHARA HOUSE

¶14

NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686607

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

¶16

BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ-R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN-R2

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶20

==========================

¶21

CRL.R.P. No.1156 OF 2012 ==========================

¶22

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2012

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The accused in C.C.No.66 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Vaikom is the revision petitioner. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Court of Sessions Judge, Kottayam Division in Crl.A.No.120 of 2012. As per the same, the appellate court dismissed the appeal consequent to the dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.1425 of 2012 filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the judgment in C.C.No.66 of 2009. The order in Crl.M.P.No.1425 of 2012 is also under challenge. The revision petitioner stands convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months.

¶25

Crl.R.P.1156/12

¶26

¶27

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 as aforesaid. Now, Crl.M.A.No.4320 of 2012 has been jointly filed by the revision petitioner and the first respondentcomplainant stating that the dispute involved in this case has been settled and the first respondent-complainant obtained the amount to his full satisfaction. I am satisfied that the first respondent has volunteered for compounding the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act against the revision petitioner. The said offence against the revision petitioner is compoundable under section 147 of the N.I. Act.

¶28

Now that the compromise duly verified by the parties is brought on record, the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act against the revision petitioner is compounded. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Vaikom under section 138 of

¶29

Crl.R.P.1156/12

¶30

¶31

the N.I.Act in C.C.66 of 2009 and judgment in Crl.Appeal No.120 of 2012 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Kottayam are set aside. The bail bond, if any, will stand cancelled.

¶32

The revision petition is disposed of, accordingly.

C.T. RAVIKUMAR

(Judge)

spc/

Crl.R.P.1156/12

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

September, 2010

¶41

Crl.R.P.1156/12 5

K.K.Ani @ Anil v. P.S.Bhaskaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Ani @ Anil v. P.S.Bhaskaran

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

Omanakuttan Vs Girish Kumar

Girish Babu Vs the State of Kerala

P.K.Kareem Vs State of Kerala

Wilfred Culas Vs State of Kerala

Sajan Mathew Peter Vs Thomas Mathew

Manikandan Vs Housing Development Financial Corpn Ltd.