Allowed

Janardhanan.T.N. v. M.I.Rajeena

Kerala HC29 Jun 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/3060/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The revision petitioner, convicted under the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of a cheque, approached the High Court for revision. A joint motion was filed by the petitioner and complainant stating that the dispute was settled and compensation paid. The court upheld the compounding of the offence, set aside the conviction and sentence, and granted acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The offence was compounded, conviction and sentence set aside, and the accused was acquitted with bail cancelled.

Janardhanan.T.N. Vs M.I.Rajeena — 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

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/8TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3060 of 2006 ( ) -------------------------------CRA.155/2005 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD CC.384/2003 of J.M.F.C.-II,PALAKKAD

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶7

JANARDHANAN.T.N., AGED 56 YEARS S/O. LATE M.N.NAMBOODIRI, 17/78(1), 'DEVI' MANAPPULLIKAVU, CHITTUR ROAD, PALAKKAD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶9

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶10

M.I.RAJEENA, W/O.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶11

HOUSE NO.18, DARSANAPURI COLONY, CHANDRANAGAR PALAKKAD.

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL-R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR-R2

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶17

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

¶18

CRL.R.P. No.3060 OF 2006

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2012

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The accused in C.C.No.384 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakad is the revision petitioner. He was convicted and sentenced by the trial court for having committed offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He took up the matter in appeal as Crl.Appeal No.155 of 2005. In the appeal, while confirming the conviction, the sentence imposed by the trial court was modified. Accordingly, the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for six months was modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for two months. However, that part of the sentence to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) as compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C with a default sentence of imprisonment for one month was confirmed by the appellate court.

¶23

2. Obviously, it is the failure on the part of the revision

¶24

petitioner to discharge the legally enforceable debt owing to the first

¶25

Crl.R.P.3060/2006

¶26

¶27

respondent/complainant despite the receipt of the statutory notice and the expiry of the statutorily prescribed period that led to his conviction and sentence. Now, Crl.M.A.No.4839 of 2012 has been jointly filed by the revision petitioner and the first respondentcomplainant under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stating that the dispute involved in this case has been settled and the first respondent-complainant has received the amount to her full satisfaction and as such, the offence may be permitted to be compounded against the revision petitioner. 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 the fact that the first respondent/complainant has volunteered to compound the offence against the revision petitioner.

¶28

In the above circumstances, the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act against the revision petitioner is compounded. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence passed against revision petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakad in C.C.No.384 of 2003 under section 138 of the N.I.Act and confirmed

¶29

Crl.R.P.3060/2006

¶30

¶31

by the judgment in Crl.A.No.155 of 2005 of the Court of Sessions

¶32

Judge, Palakad are set aside. The revision petitioner is acquitted. The

¶33

bail bond, if any, will stand cancelled.

¶34

This revision petition is disposed of, accordingly.

C.T. RAVIKUMAR

(Judge)

spc/

Crl.R.P.3060/2006

¶39

¶40

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

September, 2010

Janardhanan.T.N. v. M.I.Rajeena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janardhanan.T.N. v. M.I.Rajeena

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

Mytheen Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahiman Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Joseph Vs N.P.Kunjumon

Marykutty Philip Vs P.G.Rajendran Nair

Manoj Vs Bincy Thomas

Bahuleyan Vs R.Syamnath