Allowed

Sivasankaran Nair v. M.R.Mohankumar

Kerala HC20 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/576/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition filed by an accused convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court permitted compounding of the offence after the parties settled their disputes and deposited compounding costs, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the accused.

What did the court decide?

Crl.Arl.Appln. No.1872 of 2014 allowed for compounding; Section 138 of NI Act compounded; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted and set at liberty.

Sivasankaran Nair Vs M.R.Mohankumar — 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

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/29TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 576 of 2014 ()

¶6

Crl.Appeal 158/2001 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA CC 110/2000 of J.M.F.C.-II, HARIPAD

¶7

PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

SIVASANKARAN NAIR

¶9

S/O RAMAN NAIR, RESIDING AT NEELETHUVEEDU NADAKKAVU MURI, PERINGALA P.O., KAYAMKULAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI

¶11

SMT.SABINA JAYAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶13

M.R.MOHANKUMAR,

¶14

RESIDING AT MADHAVANCHIRAYIL VEEDUE, MAHADEVIKADUU MURI KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA.

¶15

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SMT.LIGEY ANTONY

¶17

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT P. MAYA

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.576 of 2014

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 20^th day of March 2014

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No.110 of 2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Haripad challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act'). The cheque amount was 1,50,000/-. 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 fine of 5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The fine amount,

¶25

Crl.R.P. No.576 of 2014

¶26

:2:

¶27

if realised, `4,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Crl. Appeal No.158 of 2001 filed before the Additional Sessions Court - 1, Mavelikara, filed against the conviction and sentence, was dismissed. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶28

During the pendency of this Criminal Revision Petition, the revision petitioner/accused and the first respondent/complainant filed Crl.M.Appln. No.1872 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.1872 of 2014 is allowed and permission is granted to compound the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

¶29

Crl.R.P. No.576 of 2014

¶30

:3:

¶31

Accordingly this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is compounded and the conviction and sentence against the accused in C.C. No.110 of 2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Haripad 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 //

Sivasankaran Nair v. M.R.Mohankumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivasankaran Nair v. M.R.Mohankumar

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

Abdul Razak Vs State of Kerala

A.Sreedharan Vs Kunhirman Nair (Died),, Padmavathy and Others

Sam @ Samkutty Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Sivasankaran Nair Vs K.S.Harikumar