Allowed

Anitha Alex v. v.G.Mathew

Kerala HC11 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/457/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition under Section 138 N.I. Act, the High Court allowed the petition upon receiving an affidavit of settlement and deposit of costs as per Damodar S. Prabhu. Consequently, the court granted permission to compound the offence, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition allowed, offence compounded, conviction and sentence set aside, accused acquitted under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

Anitha Alex Vs v.G.Mathew — 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 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/20TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 457 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRL. APPEAL NO.55/2000 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, ADHOC -1 (FAST TRACK), ALAPPUZHA.

¶7

CC 161/1998 of J.M.F.C., RAMANKARY

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

ANITHA ALEX, AGED 53 YEARS,

¶10

W/O.SAJU KUNJERIA, KALIKKAL VEEDU PERUMBANACHI P.O.THENGANA, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶13

V.G.MATHEW, AGED 63 YEARS

¶14

VENNALIL GARDENS, PERUNNA CHANGANACHERRY -686 102 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.C.VARGHESE PANNIKKIYIL VEEDU, MAMPUZHAKARY, KAINAKARY

¶15

ALAPPUZHA - 688 501

¶16

2 . THE STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.L.GEORGE

¶20

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-032014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.

¶23

Crl.R.P. No.457 of 2014

¶24

----------------------------------------------Dated 11^th March, 2014

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No.161/98 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary. The cheque amount was 1,00,000/-. 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 ten months and to pay 53,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section357(3) of Cr.P.C. The appeal filed as Crl.Appeal No.55 of 2000 before the Sessions Court (Ad hoc - 1 Fast Track), Alappuzha, was allowed in part to the limited extent of reducing the sentence. The conviction passed by the trial court was confirmed and the sentence was reduced. The appellant/accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The compensation awarded by the trial court was retained. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶27

During the pendency of this Criminal Revision Petition, the revision petitioner and the first respondent complainant filed Crl.M.A.No.1537 of 2014 stating that they have settled the matter and that permission may be granted to compound the

¶28

Crl.R.P.No.457/14

¶29

¶30

offence. The revision petitioner has deposited `1,000/- as costs to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, in compliance with the 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.1537 of 2014 is allowed and permission is granted to the parties to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶31

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in C.C.No.161/98 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary is compounded and the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is set aside and she is acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.

¶34

tgs

¶35

(true copy)

Anitha Alex v. v.G.Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha Alex v. v.G.Mathew

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

Biju Vs State of Kerala

James Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Riyas Vs Abdul Rahiman

Mohanlal Vs Sasidharan

P. Chandran Vs Vijayan

Ajifer Vs State of Kerala