Allowed

M/S.Royal Polymer v. M/S.Royal Polymer Distributors

Kerala HC27 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/196/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a revision petition seeking quashing of conviction under Section 138 NI Act where the accused settled the matter outside court after trial. Having received full payment as per compromise, the court acquitted the accused and set aside the trial court's order, citing Section 147 NI Act and Section 320 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted and set at liberty; compromise petition allowed.

M/S.Royal Polymer Vs M/S.Royal Polymer Distributors — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/5TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 196 of 2007 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 599/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 226/2001 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶9

M/S.ROYAL POLYMER

¶10

GOVT. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLLUR, THRISSUR,, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,, K.A.MOHAMMED.

¶11

K.A.MOHAMMED, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.ROYAL POLYMERS, DO. DO.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, STATE:

¶14

M/S.ROYAL POLYMER DISTRIBUTORS ROCK HILL BUILDING, BANERJI ROAD, COHCIN- 682 018,, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.M.GEORGE ROY.

¶15

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

¶16

R, BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY BY PP SRI C N PRABHAKARAN

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

P.D.RAJAN, J

¶19

Crl.R.P.No.196 of 2007 ....................................... Dated 27^th September, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This revision petition has been preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl.A.599 of 2006 of Sessions Court, Ernakulam. They were accused in C.C.226 of 2001 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam which was filed under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by the complainant. After trial, learned Magistrate convicted the first accused under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, A1 was sentenced to fine of Rs.1,26,951/-, A2 was sentenced to imprisonment for 15 days and, if fine amount is realised, it was directed to pay as compensation to the complainant. A1 and A2 were ordered to pay Rs500/jointly to the complainant and in default A2 was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one day. The third accused was acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Against that, he preferred Crl.A.599 of 2006 before Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, in which there was a delay of 238 days in filing the appeal and it was condoned

¶22

Crrp 196/2007 2

¶23

on condition of depositing half of the amount as compensation on or before 12.09.2006. Accused failed to deposit the amount. In the circumstance, the delay petition was dismissed and consequently criminal appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved by that, accused preferred this revision petition.

¶24

The complainant's case in the trial court is that the first accused is a firm and purchased H.D.P.E Granules from the complainant as per invoice No.6705314 dated 24.7.1999 for a sum of Rs.4,26,951/-, in discharge of that liability, accused issued Ext.P2 cheque to the complainant drawn on S.B.I, M.G.Road branch, Thrissur. When it was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for the reason of exceeds arrangement. The complainant demanded the amount by giving notice in writing. There was no payment. In the circumstance, the above complaint was filed against accused 1 to 3. The second accused is the managing partner and third accused is the partner. To prove the offence, complainant examined PW1 and marked Ext.P1 to P10 as documentary

¶25

¶26

Crrp 196/2007

¶27

evidence. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. Accused examined DW1. Learned Magistrate convicted A1 and A2 under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and acquitted A3.

¶28

When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that they have settled the matter out of court for a total sum of Rs.2,26,000/- and filed Crl.M.A.5461 of 2015. Revision petitioner and first respondent were present before court. They have signed in the compromise petition. Revision petitioner has already paid Rs.1,26,000/- on 29.8.2016. Today, he paid Rs.96,000/-. The total amount as per the compromise would come to Rs.2,26,000/-. First respondent submitted that he is satisfied with Rs.2,22,000/-. When both parties agree to settle the matter for Rs,2,22,000/- I have no objection in allowing the compromise petition. Hence Crl.M.A.5461 of 2016 is allowed. According to Section 147 of the N.I.Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of

¶29

Crrp 196/2007

¶30

¶31

Criminal Procedure 1973, every offence punishable under this section shall be compoundable. According to Section 320(6), High Court while in exercise of its powers of revision may allow any person to compound any offence. When composition of an offence is made, it shall have the effect of an acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

¶32

In the result, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court under Section 138 of N.I.Act is set aside. Accused are acquitted and set at liberty. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babulal (AIR 2010 SC 1907), the revision petitioner is directed to pay Rs.500/- to the High Court Legal Service Committee today itself.

¶33

Revision petition is disposed of as above.

¶34

P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE

¶35

lgk

M/S.Royal Polymer v. M/S.Royal Polymer Distributors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Royal Polymer v. M/S.Royal Polymer Distributors

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

E.K.P.Abdul Salam Vs Kunhi Fathima

Sabu @ Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Manzoor,S/O.Moideenkoya,Thamarasseri Ams Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by Sho.Kakkur P.Stn.

Simon Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Vs State of Kerala

P.S. Jamaludheen @ Jamal Vs S.I.of Police, Wandoor