Allowed

Renuka Suku v. Shinu Stephen

Kerala HC18 Jun 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1300/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the revision petition where the underlying dispute was settled between the parties. It held that the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was compounded under section 147 of the Act. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the order results in the disposal of the matter.

What did the court decide?

The offence is compounded under section 147 of the N.I. Act; conviction and sentence are set aside; bail bond cancelled if any.

Renuka Suku Vs Shinu Stephen — 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

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/28ND JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1300 of 2012 () ------------------------------CRA.220/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE-I, MAVELIKARA CC.324/2006 of J.M.F.C, CHENGANNUR

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER(S):APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶7

RENUKA SUKU W/O.SUKU, PANACHIKATTIL, KOTTANADU MADATHUMKAL

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.IYPE JOSEPH

¶9

COMPLAINANT(S):RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶10

SHINU STEPHEN S/O.STEPHEN MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, THIRUVANVANDOOR CHENGANNUR-689121

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN-R2

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶15

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

¶16

CRL.R.P. No.1300 OF 2012

¶17

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

¶18

Dated this the 18^th day of June, 2012

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The accused in C.C.No.324 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur is the revision petitioner. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara in Crl.A.No.220 of 2008 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur in C.C.No.324 of 2006. The revision petitioner stands convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

¶21

Obviously, it is the failure on the part of the revision

¶22

petitioner to discharge the liability towards the first respondent

¶23

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.4403 of 2012 has been jointly filed

¶24

Crl.R.P.1300/12

¶25

¶26

by the revision petitioner and the first respondent-complainant stating that the dispute involved in this case has been settled. 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.

¶27

In the above circumstances, the offence under section 138 of

¶28

the N.I. Act against the revision petitioner is compounded. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence passed against revision petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chengannur in C.C.No.324 of 2006 under section 138 of the N.I.Act and confirmed by the judgment in Crl.A.No.220 of 2008 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara are set aside. The bail bond, if any, will stand cancelled.

¶29

This revision petition is disposed of, accordingly.

¶30

C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge)

spc/

Crl.R.P.1300/12

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

September, 2010

¶37

Crl.R.P.1300/12 4

Renuka Suku v. Shinu Stephen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renuka Suku v. Shinu Stephen

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

C.v.Ramachandra Kurup Vs K.G.Mohanlal

Mohandas C.NO.109 Vs Jayanthi

Sujimon Antony @ Suji Vs Jaya @ Mary Jacquilin

K.Ravindran Nair Vs K.Gopalakrishna Bhat and Another

M/S.Kishco Ltd,Mumbai Vs K.a.Vincent @ Wiilson Alex

Asokan Vs a.N.Krishnan