Allowed

K.G.Rajamma v. State

Kerala HC27 Jun 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1441/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The revision petitioner was convicted for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after conviction and appeal. On revision, the court found the dispute settled and the offence compounded by the respondent voluntarily, invoking Section 147 of the Act. Consequently, the conviction, sentence, and bail conditions were set aside.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are set aside; the offence is compounded; the bail bond, if any, is cancelled.

K.G.Rajamma Vs State — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/6TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1441 of 2012 ()

¶6

IN CRA.536/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK)-II, ALAPPUZHA IN CC.724/2005 of J.M.F.C.-I, CHERTHALA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S):

¶8

K.G.RAJAMMA W/O DINESAN, KUMPALANTHANATHU HOUSE KANJIRANGADU P.O, THALIPARAMBU, KANNOOR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN

¶10

COMPLAINANT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶14

2. V.M. ANTONY,

¶15

W/O MATHAI, VALIATHARA HOUSE, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O

¶16

PIN – 688 527,

¶17

THANNEERMUKKOM NORTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA

¶18

ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶19

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR

¶20

R2 BY ADV. SRI. B. PRAMOD

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶24

Crl. R. P. No. 1441 of 2012

¶25

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2012

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 724/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – 1, Cherthala. There is concurrent verdict of conviction against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the principal amount and interest for the offence and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. On payment of fine amount, the same shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was further ordered. The conviction and also the said sentence was confirmed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track–II), Alappuzha in Crl. Appeal No. 536/2008. This revision petition has been filed in the said

¶28

Crl. R. P. No. 1441 of 2012

¶29

-2-

¶30

circumstances.

¶31

Obviously, it is the failure on the part of the revision petitioner to discharge the legally enforceable debt towards the second respondent despite the receipt of the statutory notice and the expiry of the statutorily prescribed period that led to his conviction and sentence as aforesaid. Now, Crl.M.A. No. 4918/2012 has been jointly filed by the revision petitioner and the second respondent/complainant stating that the dispute involved in the case has been settled in between them and therefore, the second respondent/complainant is not intending to prosecute the revision petitioner. 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. I am satisfied that the second respondent has volunteered to

¶32

Crl. R. P. No. 1441 of 2012

¶33

-3-

¶34

compound the offence against the revision petitioner.

¶35

In the above circumstances, the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the revision petitioner is compounded. The conviction and sentence imposed, against the revision petitioner as per judgment in C.C. No. 724/2005 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - 1, Cherthala and confirmed in Crl. Appeal No. 536/2008 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-II), Alappuzha are set aside. The bail bond, if any, will stand cancelled.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶38

/True copy/

¶39

P. A. to Judge

¶40

K.G.Rajamma v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G.Rajamma v. State

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

Christiandues Vs State of Kerala

Ajaya Kumar Vs Sreelatha

Sukumaran Vs State

P.v.Varghese Vs a.D.Antony Devasya

Shamsudheen Vs State of Kerala

Shamsudheen Vs State of Kerala