Allowed

Subramanyan v. O.T.Philip

Kerala HC14 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/387/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act, the High Court of Kerala allowed the revision petition. Following a private settlement and deposit of costs, the court granted permission to compound the offence, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the accused.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; offence compounded; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted.

Subramanyan Vs O.T.Philip — 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

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/23RD PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 387 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRL.APPEAL NO.150/2002 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - II, MAVELIKKARA.

¶7

CC 88/2000 of J.M.F.C.(MUNSIFF)-II, HARIPAD

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :

¶9

SUBRAMANYAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.VENKITACHALAM, DEVI NIVAS THULAMPARAMBU VADAKUM MURI, MANNARASALA P O ALAPPUZHA DIST

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR

¶11

COMPLAINANT(S)/1ST RESPONDENT :

¶12

O.T.PHILIP

¶13

R/A.KAVANATTU MANU VILLA, CHERUTHANA PACHAYATH

¶14

WARD NO.3., CHERUTHANA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DIST - 688 007.

¶15

STATE OF KERALA

¶16

REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶17

ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.PRADEEP KUMAR

¶19

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-032014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.

¶22

Crl.R.P. No.387 of 2014

¶23

----------------------------------------------Dated 14^th March, 2014

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No.88 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Munsiff) II, Haripad. The cheque amount was 35,000/-. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the N.I. Act') and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. In appeal filed as Criminal Appeal No.150/2002 before the Additional Sessions Court II, Mavelikkara, the conviction and sentenced imposed by the trial court was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶26

During the pendency of this Criminal Revision Petition, the revision petitioner and the first respondent complainant filed Crl.M.A.No.1284 of 2014 stating that they have settled the matter and that permission may be granted to compound the offence. The revision petitioner has deposited `1,000/- as costs to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, in compliance with the

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.387/14

¶28

¶29

direction in the decision reported in Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal [2010(2) KLT 587 (SC)]. Since the matter is amicably settled between the parties, Crl.M.A.No.1284 of 2014 is allowed and permission is granted to the parties to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶30

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in C.C.No.88 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Munsiff) II, Haripad is compounded and the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is set aside and he is acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.

¶33

tgs

¶34

(true copy)

Subramanyan v. O.T.Philip

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramanyan v. O.T.Philip

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jose @ Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Adv.Anandan Pillai Vs State of Kerla

Pauly and Another Vs State of Kerala

Lalu Vs Si of Pollice, Valappadu Police Station

K.Hameed Vs State of Kerala

Susan George Vs State of Kerala