Disposed

C.S.Santhosh v. K.M.Shareefa

Kerala HC22 Feb 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/2260/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition regarding conviction under cheque dishonour. The accused died during pendency. Court found no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order below. Petition abated regarding imprisonment sentence but survives regarding compensation payment.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition abated regarding imprisonment sentence; survives regarding compensation payment.

C.S.Santhosh Vs K.M.Shareefa — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/3RD PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2260 of 2005 ( )

¶6

CRA.1108/2004 OF VITH ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM CC.1304/2001 of JUDL.M.F.C.-I,ERNAKULAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED::

¶8

C.S. SANTHOSH, AGED 43,

¶9

S/O. SANKARANARAYANAN, CHUTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE ENGANDIYOOR P.O., THRISSUR DIST.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.BABU CHERUKARA

¶11

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT::

¶12

1. K.M. SHAREEFA, AGED 43,

¶13

W/O. MOHAMMED SAKAF, KALLOOPARAMBIL

¶14

FREEDOM CROSS ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17.

¶15

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

¶16

R1 BY ADV.SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ

¶17

ADV.SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)

¶18

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

BKA

¶21

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶22

----------------------------------

¶23

Crl. R.P. No. 2260 of 2005

¶24

---------------------------------

¶25

Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2012.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The accused in this case was prosecuted for the

¶28

offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He was found guilty. He was therefore convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. In appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence.

¶29

During the pendency of the revision petition, the revision petitioner died. Therefore the counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he has no instruction in this matter. After going through the judgment of the court below, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below as the orders do not suffer from illegality, irregularity or impropriety.

¶30

However, under Section 394 Cr.P.C, this revision

¶31

Crl. R.P. No. 2260 of 2005 2

¶32

petition stands abated as far as the substantive sentence of imprisonment is concerned but survives as regards the portion regarding payment of compensation.

¶33

With the above observation, this revision petition is

¶34

disposed of.

¶35

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.

¶36

Scl.

C.S.Santhosh v. K.M.Shareefa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.S.Santhosh v. K.M.Shareefa

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

Y.K.Anandhan Vs State of Kerala and Others

B.Musthafa Vs Irikoor Grama Panchayath and Another

N.v.Madhavan Vs State of Kerala

T.Ipsurahiman S/O.Late T.Alikoy Vs C.P.M.Sainabi, W/O.Late T.Alikoya

Ameer Suthan Vs the State of Kerala

Gracy Earnest Vs N.G.Mary Elizabeth