Allowed

K.Abdul Latheef v. Manappuram General Finance & Leasing Ltd.

Kerala HC16 Jan 2017Crl.Rev.Pet/1102/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 NI Act. Upon settlement by parties and withdrawal of the deposited amount, the Court compounded the offence and set aside the conviction and sentence.

What did the court decide?

Offence compounded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; conviction and sentence set aside; complainant permitted to withdraw deposited amount.

K.Abdul Latheef Vs Manappuram General Finance & Leasing Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/26TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1102 of 2011

¶6

JUDGMENT DATED 31-01-2011 IN CRL.A 190/2010 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI

¶7

JUDGMENT DATED 25-05-2010 IN CC 672/2007 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, PERINTHALMANNA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

K. ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED 40 YEARS, KARIYARAKKAL HOUSE, NIRAMARUTHOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS & STATE:

¶12

1. MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE AND LEASING

¶13

LTD., PERINTHALMANNA BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER (LEGAL) MR.JITHENDRAKUMAR.A

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH KUMAR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

msv/

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.1102 of 2011

¶19

----------------------------------------Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2017

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has instituted the aforecaptioned Criminal

¶22

Revision Petition for impugning the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 138 of the

¶23

Negotiable Instruments Act as per the impugned judgment dated 25.5.2010 in C.C.No.672/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Perinthalmanna, as modified by the appellate judgment dated 31.1.2011 of the Sessions Court

¶24

(Adhoc-I), Manjeri, in Crl.Appeal No.190 of 2010.

¶25

Heard Sri.Biju Abraham, learned counsel appearing for

¶26

the revision petitioner/accused, Sri.B.S.Suresh Kumar, learned

¶27

counsel appearing for the first respondent/complainant and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent/State.

¶28

Sri.Biju Abraham, learned counsel appearing for the

¶29

Crl.R.P.No.1102/2011

¶30

¶31

revision petitioner/accused, and Sri.B.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/complainant, submit that their respective parties have reached at a compromise and settled the entire matter, thereby the complainant has agreed to accept an amount of Rs.1,19,409/- which was deposited before the trial court (as per the interim order passed in this revision) as compensation and that the offence may be compounded and that the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner may be set aside accordingly.

¶32

The parties have now filed a joint petition for compounding of the offence as per Crl.M.A.No.6665 of 2016, which reads as follows:

¶33

“The claim put forward by the complainant in the above proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act had been settled out of Court and the amount due under the cheque had been settled between the complainant and accused and there is no further claim or dispute pending between the complainant and accused.

¶34

As per the interim order in the above revision the accused had deposited an amount of Rs.1,19,409/- before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna on

¶35

Crl.R.P.No.1102/2011

¶36

¶37

23.6.2011 and as per the settlement accused is permitted to withdraw the amount from the trial court.

¶38

The receipt of the fine amount due under the above proceedings by the complainant may be recorded and the offence may be compounded by acquitting the accused by allowing the accused to withdraw the amount deposited in trial court, for the ends of justice.”

¶39

It is pointed out that as per the modified sentence

¶40

imposed by the appellate Sessions Court, the petitioner was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,38,818/- as compensation to the complainant and as per the interim order dated 12.4.2011 passed in this revision, this Court had directed the suspension of the impugned sentence on condition that the petitioner should deposit half of the cheque amount and in this regard, the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.1,19,409/- before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna, on 23.6.2011. That now as per the settlement arrived at between the parties as written in the joint petition for compounding, it has been agreed by the petitioner/accused that the said amount of Rs.1,19,409/- deposited

¶41

before the trial court may be withdrawn by the complainant as

¶42

Crl.R.P.No.1102/2011

¶43

¶44

consideration of the settlement arrived at during the pendency of

¶45

this revision petition.

¶46

In the light of these aspects, the following orders are

¶47

passed :

¶48

(i) The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleged against the petitioner in relation to this case will stand compounded.

¶49

(ii) The impugned conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner will stand set aside.

¶50

(iii) The first respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,19,409/- deposited before the trial court, on application in that regard made by the complainant.

¶51

With these observations and directions, the Criminal Revision

¶52

Petition stands finally disposed of.

¶53

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶54

csl

¶55

Continued at page No.-5-

¶56

Crl.R.P.No.1102/2011

¶57

¶58

The word “ complainant ” occurring in the last line of paragraph 5 at page 3 and the words “ first respondent/complainant ” occurring in paragraph 6(iii) of the final order dated 16/01/2017 in Crl.R.P.No.1102/2011 are corrected and substituted by the word “ accused ” as per order dated 28.2.2017 in Crl.M.A.No.960/2017 in Crl.R.P.No.1102/2011.

¶59

Registrar (Judicial)

K.Abdul Latheef v. Manappuram General Finance & Leasing Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Abdul Latheef v. Manappuram General Finance & Leasing Ltd.

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

Asokan Vasu Vs State of Kerala

Sabina Abraham Vs T.Chandran

Archana Vs Harikumar C.J.

Arun Francis Vs State of Kerala

S.Madhulal Vs Raveendran

Sudheerkumar Vs State of Kerala