The revision petition against conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act was allowed as the offence was compounded by the first respondent. The compromise verified before the bank requested for quashing of the judgment. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence accordingly.
Conviction and sentence set aside. Compounding accepted. Bail bond cancelled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2012/12TH ASHADHA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 934 of 2012 ()
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATD 16.3.2012 IN CRA.439/2009 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM IN JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.2009 IN ST.266/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM)
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RAJIV G.NAIR AUTO CONSULTANT AND INSURANCE AGENT (SWATHY) ADVOCATE GOPALAKRISHNAPILLAI MEMORIAL TOWER KOLLAM. (VADAKKUMBHAGATH KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU THEVALLY, KOLLAM)
BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY ZACHARIA
COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTSCOMPLAINANT AND STATE:
R1 BY ADV.SRI. SUNIL KUMAR. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMACHANDRAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
al.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
===========================
CRL. R.P. NO. 934 of 2012
===========================
Dated this the 3rd day of July 2012
O R D E R
The revision petitioner was the accused in S.T.No. 266/2008 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam. This revision petition is filed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 439/2009 of the court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam. There is concurrent verdict of conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant and in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 ½ months under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This revision petition has been filed in the said circumstances.
CRL. R.P. NO. 934 of 2012 #2 #
respondent as per order dated 28-5-2012. The 1st respondent entered appearance through counsel. Criminal M.A. No. 5057/2012 for compounding the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has now, been filed jointly by the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent/the complainant. The compromise is verified and brought on record. Evidently, the 1st respondent has volunteered to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the first respondent did volunteer to compound the offence against the revision petitioner as the case that led to the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner has been amicably settled by the first respondent and the revision petitioner, as stated in the compounding petition. Going by the provisions under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an offence under Section 138 is compoundable.
CRL. R.P. NO. 934 of 2012 #3 #
Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compounded against the revision petitioner. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam as per the judgement dated 24-11-2009 in S.T.No. 266/2008, that was confirmed as per the judgement dated 16-3-2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 439/2009 of the court of II Additional Sessions Court, Kollam are set aside. The bail bond, if any, will stand cancelled.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)
kvr/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be set aside upon voluntary compounding.
Whether the High Court should interfere when the parties have already entered into a compromise before the trial court.
If the offence is compoundable under Section 138 and the petitioner requests for quashing of the judgment.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajiv G. Nair
Lancy Fernandez
State of Kerala
C.T. Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
