Allowed

Nabeezath v. Azeera

Kerala HC13 Aug 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1823/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 NI Act was allowed after the court found that the complainant had accepted compensation and was willing to compound the offence. The high court granted permission to compound, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Permission to compound the offence under Section 138 NI Act granted; conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted.

Nabeezath Vs Azeera — 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 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/22ND SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1823 of 2012 ()

¶6

IN CRA.NO.1119/2006 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-1 (FAST TRACK), TRIVANDRUM IN ST.NO.77/2006 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, VARKALA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN CRL.A.NO.1119/2009 -------------------------------- ACCUSED IN S.T.77/2006

¶8

NABEEZATH, AGED 50 YEARS'

¶9

D/O.SAYED, VAYILIL VEEDU (LIBA NINAS),

¶10

NEAR VETTOOR POST OFFICE, VETTOOR VILLAGE, VARKKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CRL.A.NO.1119/2006/ ---------------------- COMPLAINANT IN S.T.77/2006 RESPONDENT NO.2 IN.CRL.A.NO.1119/2006

¶13

1. AZEERA,

¶14

D/O.FASULUDEEN, SUMAYA MANZIL, VETTOOR VILLAGE, VARKKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695 301

¶15

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶16

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶18

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

MJL

¶21

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶22

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

¶23

CRL. R.P. NO. 1823 of 2012

¶24

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

¶25

Dated this the 13^th day of August 2012

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The revision petitioner was the accused in S.T.No. 77/2006

¶28

on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Varkala. This revision petition is filed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.1119/2006 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. There is concurrent verdict of conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The revision petitioner herein stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation to the first respondent under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. and in default to pay the amount of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶29

Notice was ordered and served on the 1^st respondent/the

¶30

complainant. The learned public prosecutor took notice on behalf of

¶31

#2#

¶32

CRL. R.P. NO. 1823 of 2012

¶33

the 2nd respondent. Now, a joint petition under Section 147 of the

¶34

N.I. Act has been filed by the revision petitioner and the 1^st respondent. It is stated that the 1^st respondent has received the entire compensation as ordered by the court below and in the said circumstances, the 1^st respondent is not intending to prosecute the revision petitioner. Essentially, the prayer is to permit compounding of the offence against the revision petitioner.

¶35

An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable in terms of the provisions under Section 147 of the N.I Act. It is evident from the said petition that the 1^st respondent has volunteered to compound the offence against the revision petitioner u/s. 138 of the N.I. Act. When the law permits compounding of the offence and the petition now jointly filed by the revision petitioner and the 1^st respondent/complainant reveals the intention and willingness on the part of the 1^st respondent to compound the offence u/s. 138 against the revision petitioner, there is no reason to decline such permission. The learned Counsel for the first

¶36

#3#

¶37

CRL. R.P. NO. 1823 of 2012

¶38

respondent submits that what was intended by the petitioner is to compound the offence against the revision petitioner, under Section 147 N.I. Act. Therefore, the little defect in the said application with respect to the prayer cannot be a reason to decline such permission. In the said circumstances, the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the revision petitioner is compounded. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner as per the order dated 9-11-2011 in S.T. No. 77/2006 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Varkala that was confirmed by the judgment of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram in Criminal Appeal No. 1119/2006 are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted. The bail bond, if any, will stand cancelled.

¶39

Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)

¶40

kvr/

¶41

/True copy/ P.A. to Judge

Nabeezath v. Azeera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nabeezath v. Azeera

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

K.G.Gopalakrishnan Vs Sri. K.G.Mohan Lal

Sunil S. Vs Mr. P.C.Benoy

K.R.Sadanandhan Vs Sri.K.G.Mohan Lal

Aneesh N. Vs Vineetha T.V.K.

Raveendran P.P Vs Premavally T.M

V.P. Dharma Dathan Vs Sri.K.G.Mohan Lal, Managing Director