In a criminal revision appeal, the High Court of Kerala quashed the conviction and sentence of the appellant involved in a cheque dishonour case after the complainant filed a joint petition to compound the offence with the appellant.
Conviction and sentence were set aside; appellant was acquitted; bail bond stood cancelled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2012/14TH ASHADHA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1445 of 2012 (A)
IN CRL.APPEAL NO.249/2006 of THE COURT OF SESSIONS, KASARAGOD IN CC.NO. 489/2005 of J.M.F.C.-II, KASARAGOD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
PAYAPURA MUHAMMED HANEEF
S/O.KUNHIMAHINKUTTY, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE NR.RAILWAY STATION TRIKARIPUR P.O., HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DT.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1. N.K.ABDULRAHIMAN, AGED 63 YEARS S/O.NUMBER KUNHALI, R/at BISMI MANZIL, NELLIKUNNU KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT-683001.
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SIJU MATHEW
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
=========================== CRL. R.P. NO. 1445 of 2012
===========================
Dated this the 5th day of July 2012
O R D E R
The revision petitioner was the accused in C.C.No. 489/2005
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kasaragod. This revision petition is filed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 249/2006 of the Court of Sessions, Kasaragod. There is concurrent verdict of conviction against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the appeal the appellate court modified the sentence while confirming the conviction. The petitioner now stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and he was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-, to the complainant under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. This revision petition has been filed in the said circumstances.
CRL. R.P. NO. 1445 of 2012 #2#
the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has now, been filed jointly by the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent/the complainant. The compromise is duly verified and brought on record. Evidently, the 1st respondent has volunteered to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the first respondent did volunteer to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the revision petitioner as the case that led to the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner has been amicably settled by the first respondent and the revision petitioner, as stated in the compounding petition. Going by the provisions under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an offence under Section 138 is compoundable.
CRL. R.P. NO. 1445 of 2012 #3#
138 of the N.I. Act is compounded against the revision petitioner. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kasaragod as per the judgement dated 29-04-2006 in C.C.No. 489/2005 and the judgement dated 29-04-2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 249/2006 of the Sessions Court, Kasaragod confirming the conviction but, modifying the sentence are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted. The bail bond, if any, will stand cancelled.
Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)
kvr/
/True copy/
P.A. to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should set aside the conviction and sentence upon the filing of a valid compounding petition under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Payapura Muhammed Haneef
State of Kerala
C.T. Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
