Quashed

Sajan Mathew Peter v. Thomas Mathew

Kerala HC14 Jun 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1257/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner for cheque dishonour under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and also quashed the criminal appeal judgment, following the compromise of the offence. The amount of compensation awarded was also impacted by this order.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.183 of 2007 were set aside.

Sajan Mathew Peter Vs Thomas Mathew — 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.1257 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRA.183/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA ST.190/2007 of C.J.M.PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER:

¶8

SAJAN MATHEW PETER

¶9

THADATHIL HOUSE, MYLAPRA TOWN.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.MANJU

¶11

COUNTER PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶12

THOMAS MATHEW

¶13

VADAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, KEEZHUKARA, KOZHENCHERRY.P.O.

¶14

PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶15

STATE OF KERALA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ-R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAJJU.S-R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BIJU MINATTOOR-R2

¶19

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

¶20

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ==========================

¶21

CRL.R.P. No.1257 OF 2012 ==========================

¶22

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2012

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The accused in S.T.No.190 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta is the revision petitioner. He was convicted and sentenced by the trial court for having committed offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He took up the matter in appeal as Crl.Appeal No.183 of 2007. In the appeal, while confirming the conviction, the sentence was modified. The sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for three months was modified as simple imprisonment for two months. An amount of Rs.2 lakhs was awarded as compensation with a default sentence of imprisonment for two months.

¶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

¶26

Crl.R.P.1257/12

¶27

¶28

statutorily prescribed period that led to his conviction and sentence. Crl.M.A.No.4286 of 2012 has been jointly filed by the revision petitioner and the first respondent-complainant under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the effect that the case has been compromised and that they made terms. It is stated that the first respondent has no objection in acquitting the accused-revision petitioner by compounding the offence.

¶29

The compromise duly verified by the parties is brought on

¶30

record. On perusing the petition filed under section 147 of the N.I.Act and upon hearing the learned counsel for the first respondent, it is evident that the first respondent, the complainant has volunteered to compound the offence and that the first respondent does not want to prosecute the revision petitioner. The offence is compoundable in view of section 147 of the N.I Act. In the circumstances, having satisfied that the dispute has been compromised, the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act against the revision petitioner/accused is compounded. Resultantly, the conviction and

¶31

Crl.R.P.1257/12

¶32

¶33

sentence passed against the revision petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta under section 138 of the N.I.Act in S.T.No.190 of 2007 and the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.183 of 2007 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence are set aside. The bail bond, if any, will stand cancelled.

¶34

C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge)

spc/

Crl.R.P.1257/12

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

September, 2010

¶41

Crl.R.P.1257/12 5

Sajan Mathew Peter v. Thomas Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajan Mathew Peter v. Thomas Mathew

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

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

Wilfred Culas Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan Vs Housing Development Financial Corpn Ltd.