Partly allowed

Mohanan K.N. @ Sathyan v. Prabil Kumar T.N.

Kerala HC4 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/317/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision Petition was allowed on the merits as the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was compounded between the parties, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence and acquittal of the accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition allowed; offence compounded; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted and set at liberty.

Mohanan K.N. @ Sathyan Vs Prabil Kumar T.N. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/13TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 317 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRL.A 293/2006 of IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT.,EKM CC 657/2002 of J.M.F.C.,KOLENCHERRY

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

MOHANAN K.N. @ SATHYAN, AGED 45 YEARS

¶9

KATTAMAKKUDIYIL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR P.O., NADUKRURISU ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

PRABIL KUMAR T.N. THEKKE ALUNCHERIL HOUSE, PAMPAKUDA P.O., MEMURI ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY ADV. SMT.RESMI THOMAS

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT P MAYA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.317 of 2014

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 4^th day of March 2014

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No.657 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class

¶23

Magistrate Court, Kolenchery challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act'). The cheque amount was 60,000/-. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of 60,000/- to the complainant in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In Crl.Appeal No.293 of 2006 filed before IV Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, the conviction was

¶24

:2:

¶25

Crl.R.P. No.317 of 2014

¶26

confirmed and the sentence was modified and the sentence imposed on the accused was reduced to 15 days retaining the order of compensation and the default clause sentence passed by the trial court. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶27

During the pendency of this Criminal Revision Petition, the revision petitioner/accused and the first respondent/complainant filed Crl.M.Appln.No.1039 of 2014 for compounding the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act stating that they have settled all their disputes. The revision petitioner deposited `1,000/- before the Kerala State Legal Service Authority towards compounding costs. Since the matter is amicably settled between the parties, Crl.M.Appln.No.1039 of 2014 is allowed and permission is granted to compound the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

¶28

Crl.R.P. No.317 of 2014

¶29

:3:

¶30

Accordingly this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed

¶31

and the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is compounded and the conviction and sentence against the accused in C.C. No.657 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery under Section 138 of the NI Act is set aside and the accused is acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and set at liberty.

¶32

Sd/- M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)

¶33

dl/

¶34

// TRUE COPY //

Mohanan K.N. @ Sathyan v. Prabil Kumar T.N.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan K.N. @ Sathyan v. Prabil Kumar T.N.

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

P.J.Jithin@Perumbayil Jithin Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shereef Vs State of Kerala

N.Raja Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar @ Chanthu Vs State of Kerala

K.I.Unnikrishnan Namboothiri Vs the Central Bureau of Investigatio

Kumaraswamy Vs State of Kerala