Allowed

Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala & Another

Kerala HC23 Jan 2017Crl.Rev.Pet/1639/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition against conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act allowed on terms of compounding. Court set aside impugned judgments as petitioner and complainant settled, paid compensation, and filed joint petition to compound offence under Sections 147 NI Act and 320 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgments set aside; offence compounded; petitioner acquitted.

Sunilkumar Vs State of Kerala & Another — 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 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2017/3RD MAGHA, 1938 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1639 of 2007 ( ) ---------------------------------

¶5

CRA 342/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM C.C.1436/2003 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, KOTTAYAM

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶7

SUNILKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, PATHIYARATH HOUSE, KUMARAKOM, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶10

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

¶11

2. P.T.PRAKASAN, KUMARATHUMTHARA HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SAIGI JACOB PALETTY

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

==================

Crl.R.P.No. 1639 of 2007

¶18

==================

¶19

Dated this the 23^rd day of January, 2017 O R D E R

¶20

The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner accused to impugn the judgment dated 20.5.2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kottayam, as modified by the impugned appellate judgment dated 9.1.2007, of the Sessions Court, Kottayam, in Crl.Appeal No.342/2006. The appellate court has modified the sentence under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act by reducing the substantive sentence of 4 months' simple imprisonment to imprisonment till rising of the court and had directed to pay an amount of Rs.1.2 lakhs as compensation to the complainant under Sec.375(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.

¶21

Heard Sri.C.S.Manu, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner accused, Sri.Anoop Joseph, learned counsel appearing for R-2 complainant and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-1 State.

¶22

Sri.C.S.Manu, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner accused, Sri.Anoop Joseph, learned counsel appearing for R-2 complainant submit that their respective parties have entered

¶23

: 2 :-

¶24

into a settlement and that the entire amounts as per compensation to the complainant have been paid by the petitioner accused and that the parties have now filed a joint petition for compounding the offence. The joint petition filed as per Crl.M.A.No.417/2017 in the Criminal Revision Petition, reads as follows:

¶25

“PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 READ WITH SECTION 320 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR COMPOUNDING THE OFFENCE.

¶26

The petitioners herein are the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent in the above Crl.Revision Petition. The Crl. R.P. was filed against conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act imposed on the 1^st petitioner as per the judgment dated 28.9.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track (Ad-hoc)-I, Kottayam, in Crl.A.No.342 of 2006 and the judgment dated 20.5.2006 in C.C.No. 1436 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kottayam.

¶27

The petitioner and the 2^nd respondent have settled the matter amicably out of the court. Petitioners intend to compound the above offence. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice requires that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to permit the petitioners to compound the offence or else the petitioners will be put to irreparable injury, loss and hardship.

¶28

Hence it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the petitioners to compound the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, alleged against the 1^st petitioner in the above Criminal Revision Petition and the said offence may be compounded acquitting the 1^st petitioner.”

¶29

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2017.

¶30

SD/SD/1^ST PETITIONER/ 2^ND PETITIONER/ REVISION PETITIONER 2^ND RESPONDENT. SD/SD/C.S.MANU (M-85), ANOOP JOSEPH PETITIONER/REVISION COUNSEL FOR THE 2ND PETITIONER PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT.”

¶31

It is further submitted by Sri.C.S.Manu, learned counsel

¶32

: 3 :-

¶33

appearing for the revision petitioner accused that in view of the extreme financial difficulties faced by the petitioner, he could not earlier take effective steps for effectuating the settlement between the parties and that the delay in this regard was not intentional and deliberate, but only due to the abovesaid circumstances. Since the offence is one under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, this Court is also of the view that a liberal view can be taken in the matter. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers under Sec.147 of the N.I. Act and other enabling powers, it is ordered that the impugned judgments of both the courts below in relation to the present case will stand set aside and the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act alleged against the petitioner in the instant case will stand compounded and the petitioner will consequentially stand acquitted of the said offence.

¶34

With these observations and directions, the Crl.M.C. stands finally disposed of.

¶35

Sd/sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True Copy///

¶36

P.S. to Judge

¶37

: 4 :-

Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala & Another

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

Bindu Babu @ Bindu N.R Vs State of Kerala

C.Viswanathan Vs M/S.Powererect

M/S.Gem Agencies (Keralal) Vs Anaes

Gopalakrishna Kurup Vs Usha

K.Bhaskara Marar Vs State of Kerala

T.K.Ayisha Vs P.K.Padmanabhan Nair