Allowed

Varghese Joseph v. N.P.Kunjumon

Kerala HC28 Jun 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1447/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal revision petition against a conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that since the offence was compounded following a verified compromise and payment of compensation, the appeal judgment was set aside and the accused was acquitted. Bail bond was cancelled.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted; bail bond cancelled.

Varghese Joseph Vs N.P.Kunjumon — 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 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/7TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1447 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRA.654/2007 of COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK)-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.193/2006 of J.M.F.C., RAMANKARI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

VARGHESE JOSEPH, NIKARTHIL HOUSE,MANCOMBU.P.O, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD

¶10

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

N.P.KUNJUMON,

¶12

S/O.KUNJAN,PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE,

¶13

MAMPUZHAKKARY, RAMANKARY, KUTTANADU,ALAPPUZHA - 688 524.

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH RONY JOSE FOR R1

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R2

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶19

Crl.R.P.No.1447 of 2012 ---------------------------Dated 28^th June, 2012

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The accused in C.C.No.193 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankary is the revision petitioner. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II), Alappuzha in Crl.A.No.654 of 2007 confirming the conviction and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposed on the revision petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶22

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 statutorily prescribed period that led to the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Now, Crl.M.A.No.4943 of 2012 has been jointly filed by the revision petitioner and the first respondent-complainant stating that the dispute involved in the criminal case has been settled in between them and the first respondent-complainant obtained the amount to his full satisfaction. In the circumstances, the offence against the revision

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.1447/2012 2

¶24

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. The compromise duly verified brought on record by filing the above petition would reveal that the complainant has volunteered to compound the said offence against the revision petitioner.

¶25

In the above circumstances, the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act against the revision petitioner is compounded. The judgment against the revision petitioner in Crl.A.No.654 of 2007 of the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II), Alappuzha confirming the conviction and sentence imposed as per judgment in C.C.No.193 of 2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankary is set aside. Resultantly, the revision petitioner is acquitted. The bail bond, if any, will stand cancelled.

¶26

Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge

¶27

TKS

Varghese Joseph v. N.P.Kunjumon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varghese Joseph v. N.P.Kunjumon

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

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

Shamsudheen Vs State of Kerala

Shamsudheen Vs State of Kerala

Mytheen Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahiman Vs State of Kerala

Samuel Vs Chandrakumar and Another