Allowed

Marykutty Philip v. P.G.Rajendran Nair

Kerala HC29 Jun 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1324/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1324 of 2012, the Kerala High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused in a cheque-bouncing case after accepting a compromise petition filed by the complainant and the victim under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted; bail bond cancelled; offence compounded.

Marykutty Philip Vs P.G.Rajendran Nair — 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

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/8TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1324 of 2012 () ------------------------------CRA.320/2003 OF SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA CC.731/2002 OF J.M.F.C.-I,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶7

MARYKUTTY PHILIP, AGED 83 YEARS KALLETHU VEEDU,KUZHIKKALA.P.O,ARANMULA PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ

¶9

SRI.SAJJU.S

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(S)/STATE:

¶11

P.G.RAJENDRAN NAIR

¶12

PARAYANTEETHU,KANJIRAVELI,ARANMULA

¶13

PATHANAMTHITTA-689645

¶14

STATE OF KERALA,

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.ANANDARAJAN.N-R1

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN-R2

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶21

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

¶22

CRL.R.P. No.1324 OF 2012

¶23

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

¶24

Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2012

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The accused in C.C.No.731 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta is the revision petitioner. She was convicted and sentenced by the trial court for having committed offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. She took up the matter in appeal as Crl.Appeal No.320 of 2003. In the appeal, while confirming the conviction, the sentence was modified. The sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for six months was modified as simple imprisonment for two months. An amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was awarded as compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C with a default sentence of imprisonment for three months. This revision petition is filed, in the said circumstances, against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.320 of 2003.

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.R.P.1324/2012 2

¶29

petitioner to discharge the legally enforceable debt owing to the first respondent/complainant despite the receipt of the statutory notice and the expiry of the statutorily prescribed period that led to her conviction and sentence. Crl.M.A.No.4516 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. It is stated that the first respondent has no objection in acquitting the accused-revision petitioner by compounding the offence.

¶30

The compromise duly verified by the parties is brought on record by filing the above mentioned application. 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

¶31

Crl.R.P.1324/2012 3

¶32

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 sentence passed against the revision petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta under section 138 of the N.I.Act in C.C.No.731 of 2002 and the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.320 of 2003 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted. The bail bond, if any, will stand cancelled.

¶33

C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge)

¶34

spc/

¶35

Crl.R.P.1324/2012

¶36

¶37

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

September, 2010

¶40

Crl.R.P.1324/2012 5

Marykutty Philip v. P.G.Rajendran Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marykutty Philip v. P.G.Rajendran Nair

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

Mytheen Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahiman Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Joseph Vs N.P.Kunjumon

Janardhanan.T.N. Vs M.I.Rajeena

Manoj Vs Bincy Thomas

Bahuleyan Vs R.Syamnath