Allowed

N.Thomson Nadar v. Aysha Narayanan

Kerala HC30 May 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/3862/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition regarding conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court of Kerala reviewed the matter after parties filed a complaint under section 147 declaring a compromise. Finding the dispute was settled, the court compounded the offence, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compounded; conviction and sentence are set aside; accused is acquitted and set at liberty.

N.Thomson Nadar Vs Aysha Narayanan — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2012/9TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3862 of 2006 ( )

¶6

CRA.336/2002 of II ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC.82/2000 of J.M.F.C.IV (MOBILE),TVM.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

N.THOMSON NADAR,

¶9

PROPRIETOR, (MANAGING PARTNER, THOMSON GRAPHITE MINES AND CRUCIBILE WORKS), RAJ BHAVAN COMPANY MUKKU, VELLANAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY

¶11

SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH

¶12

SRI.T.P.DEYANANTHAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

AYSHA NARAYANAN, W/O. NARAYANAN,

¶15

RAJU BHAVAN, SPACE NAGAR, SREEKARIYAM

¶16

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.AJI GOPINATH

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH-R1

¶21

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3005-2012,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

CRL.R.P.3862/06

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

ANNEXURE 1:TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 5.1.1996. ANNEXURE 2:TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 6.1.1996. ANNEXURE 3: TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT.

¶26

ANNEXURE 4:TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.30.11.04 IN O.S.69/04 OF THE SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD.

¶27

ANNEXURE 5:TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 31.1.95.

¶28

ANNEXURE 6:TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN C.C.82/00 BEFORE THE JFCM COURT-IV,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶29

ANNEXURE 7:TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.8.05 FILED BY THE REVISION PETITIONER BEFORE THE D.G.P.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

¶31

//TRUE COPY//

¶32

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶33

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ==========================

¶34

CRL.R.P. No.3862 OF 2012

¶35

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

¶36

Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2012

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The accused in C.C.No.82/2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- IV (Mobile Court), Thiruvananthapuram 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.336/2002. In the appeal, while confirming the conviction, the sentence was modified. The sentence to undergo simple imprisonment was modified to one of imprisonment till rising of the court. An amount of Rs.4 lakhs was awarded as compensation under 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a default sentence of two and a half months. An amount of Rs.750/- towards the cost of the proceedings was also directed to be paid to the defacto complainant. A default sentence of ten days was imposed in regard to

Crl.R.P.3862/06

it.

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

¶43

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 his conviction and sentence. Crl.M.A.No.2821 of 2012 has been jointly filed by the revision petitioner and the first respondent-complainant under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the effect that the dispute between them has been compromised and as the parties had come to terms, the first respondent is not intending to prosecute the accused-revision petitioner and as such, the offence may be permitted to be compounded.

¶44

On perusing the petition filed under section 147 of the N.I.Act and upon hearing the learned counsel for the first respondent, it is evident that the parties to this case have compromised their dispute and that the first respondent does not want to prosecute this

¶45

Crl.R.P.3862/06

¶46

¶47

revision petition in view of the compromise arrived between the parties. The offence is compoundable in view of section 147 of the N.I Act. In the circumstances, having satisfied that the dispute has been compromised, the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act against the revision petitioner/accused is compounded. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV (Mobile Court), Thiruvananthapuram under section 138 of the N.I.Act and the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.336 of 2002 of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram are set aside. The revision petitioner is acquitted and he is set at liberty. The bail bond, if any, will stand cancelled.

¶48

C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge)

spc/

Crl.R.P.3862/06

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

JUDGMENT

Crl.R.P.3862/06

September, 2010

N.Thomson Nadar v. Aysha Narayanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Thomson Nadar v. Aysha Narayanan

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

Sukumaran.v. Vs Ragesh Kumar R

M/S. Prima Industries Limited Vs the Registrar of Companies

Adil Vs Daison Raj

N.Thomson Nadar Vs Aysha Narayanan

Joy Vs State of Kerala

Basheer Kutty Vs State of Kerala