Allowed

Kumaraswamy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/357/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour, the court allowed the petition and acquited the accused after permission was granted to compound the offence due to settlement between parties.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition is allowed; the offence under Section 138 NI Act is compounded; the conviction and sentence are set aside; the accused is acquitted and set at liberty.

Kumaraswamy Vs State of Kerala — 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. 357 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRL.A 649/2010 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-1), PALAKKAD STC 1380/2009 of J.M.F.C.,CHITTUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

KUMARASWAMY, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.MARIYAPPA GOUNDER, 'VAISAIYAM', KUMARAMANNAM CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.

¶12

R.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 57 YEARS S/O.RAJAN CHETTIAR, RAM NAGAR, PALAKKAD ROAD POLLACHI-673001.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT P MAYA

¶15

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

¶16

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No. 357 of 2014

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 4^th day of March 2014

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused in S.T.C. No.1380 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act'). The cheque amount was 1,55,,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 1,70,000/- to the complainant in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. In Crl. Appeal No.649 of 2010 filed before the Additional Sessions (Adhoc No.I), Palakkad, the conviction

¶22

Crl.R.P. No. 357 of 2014

¶23

was confirmed and the sentence was modified and imprisonment was reduced to one month and compensation of `2,06,150/- to the complainant in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶24

During the pendency of this Criminal Revision Petition, the revision petitioner/accused and the 2^nd respondent/complainant filed Crl.M.Appln.No.1176 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. 1176 of 2014 is allowed and permission is granted to compound the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

¶25

Accordingly this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed

¶26

Crl.R.P. No. 357 of 2014

¶27

:3:

¶28

and the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is compounded and the conviction and sentence against the accused in S.T.C. No.1380 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate

¶29

Court, Chittur under Section 138 of the NI Act is set aside and the accused is acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of

¶30

Criminal Procedure and set at liberty.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)

¶33

dl/

¶34

// TRUE COPY //

Kumaraswamy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumaraswamy v. State of Kerala

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

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