Allowed

Moosa Ashraf v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Mar 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/124/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, relying on Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal, waived the cost deposit condition precedent for compounding a cheque dishonour offence. Upon settlement, the court granted permission to compound the offence recorded as an acquittal, setting aside conviction and discharging bail.

What did the court decide?

Permission to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act granted with effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) of the Code; conviction and sentence set aside; bail bond d

Moosa Ashraf Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 124 of 2018

¶6

Crl.A 160/2013 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT - II, MANJERI CC 1/2009 of JUDL.MAG.OF FIRST CLASS-I,MANJERI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

MOOSA ASHRAF S/O. CHEKUNNI, POTTENGAL HOUSE, KALIKAVU, THRIKUNNASSERI, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 018.

¶12

2. C.R. RAVI S/O. RAGHAVAN, CHERAKKAL HOUSE, AMAPOYIL, THUVOOR VIA, VELLAYOOR AMSOM, DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK - 679 330.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

.....................................................

¶17

Crl. M.A. No. 1365 of 2018

¶18

¶19

Crl.R.P. No. 124 of 2018

¶20

..................................................... Dated this the 7th day of March, 2018

¶21

ORDER

¶22

For the reasons stated in the application, the cost to be deposited by the revision petitioner before the Legal Services Authority as a condition precedent to grant permission to compound the offence as held by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal [2010 (2)KLT 587 (SC)] stands waived.

¶23

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶24

ani/

¶25

-2-

¶26

Crl. R.P. No. 124 of 2018

¶27

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶28

.....................................................

¶29

Crl.R.P. No. 124 of 2018

¶30

.....................................................

¶31

Dated this the 7th day of March, 2018

¶32

ORDER

¶33

CMA No. 1357 of 2018 has been jointly filed by the revision petitioner and the second respondent, who is the complainant before the trial court, praying for recording composition.

¶34

This Court as per order dated 7-3-2018 in Crl.M.A. No. 1365 of 2018 waived the amount to be deposited by the revision petitioner before the Legal Services Authority as a condition precedent to grant permission to compound the offence as held by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal [2010 (2)KLT 587 (SC)].

¶35

The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is compoundable under Sec. 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, since the matter has been settled between the parties, it is only just and proper to grant permission to compound

¶36

Crl. R.P. No. 124 of 2018

¶37

-3-

¶38

the offence. Accordingly, permission stands granted and the composition stands recorded, which is having the effect of acquittal under Section 320 (8) of the Code.

¶39

In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and the revision petitioner stands acquitted for the said offence under Section 320 (8) of the Code. The bail bond of the revision petitioner stands discharged.

¶40

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶41

ani/

¶42

Crl. R.P. No. 124 of 2018 -4-

Moosa Ashraf v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moosa Ashraf v. State of Kerala

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

K.R.Ramesh Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala

M.C.Murali Vs State of Kerala

K.J.Jacob Vs the State of Kerala

Nandhini Vijayaraghavan Vs Manimenon

Unnikrishnan Ullisseri Vs Chandran