Allowed

Biju Varghese v. John

Kerala HC2 Feb 2017Crl.Rev.Pet/3041/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the accused revision petition against his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, setting aside the conviction and sentence upon the completion of an out-of-court settlement between the parties, granting him an acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act set aside; accused acquitted and set at liberty; directed to pay Rs.500 to the Legal Service Committee.

Biju Varghese Vs John — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/13TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3041 of 2004 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.244/2002 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ALAPUZHA DATED 06-07-2004

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 1185/1998 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, CHERTHALA DATED 14-08-2002

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

BIJU VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, KOYIKKARA HOUSE, WARD NO: 21, CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY, CHERTHALA P.O.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

1. JOHN, S/O.JOSEPH, MALAYIL HOUSE, WARD NO.21, CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY,, CHERTHALA P.O.

¶13

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

¶14

ERNAKULAM.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP

¶16

R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DIVYA C. BALAN.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

acd

¶19

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶20

Crl.R.P.No.3041 of 2004

¶21

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2017

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.244/2002 of Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha. He was the accused in C.C. No.1185/1998 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala, which was filed u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act). The learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and compensation of 80,000/- u/s.357(3)₹ Cr.P.C. Against that, the accused preferred the above criminal appeal before Sessions Judge, Alappuzha , where the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred this revision petition.

¶24

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned

¶25

Crl.R.P.No.3041/2004 2

¶26

counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the parties have settled the matter out of Court and filed Crl.M.A.No.609/2017. The revision petitioner directly paid ₹32,000/- to the 1st respondent and an amount of 20,000/-₹ had already been deposited in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala as per the direction of this Court in Crl.M.A.No.13931/2004 which will be adjusted with the settlement amount, thereby the revision petitioner paid the entire settlement amount of 52,000/- to the 1₹ st respondent. When both parties are settling the matter, this Court has no objection in allowing the compromise petition. According to Section 147 of the N.I.Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, every offenoce punishable under the NI Act shall be compoundable. According to Section 320(6), a High Court or Court of Sessions while exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.3041/2004

¶28

¶29

this section. When the composition of offence under the Section is made, it shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

¶30

In view of the compromise, the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala under Section 138 of N.I.Act are set aside. Accused is 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 within one week from today.

¶31

Revision petition is disposed of as above.

¶32

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶33

acd

Biju Varghese v. John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju Varghese v. John

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

Antany Vs S.I of Police

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs K.T.Thomas

Alance C.Scaria Rep. by Guardian Father Scariachan Vs Thomas

Itty Avira Mani Vs Sri Brainy C Varghese

Saju Jose Vs Nijin Varghese

P.Anilkumar Vs C.Venugopalan Nair