Allowed

Faizal K.B v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jan 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/1111/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a case involving conviction under Section 138 NI Act, the High Court allowed the criminal revision petition after parties settled outside court. The Court granted permission to compound the offence and set aside conviction, holding it results in acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of the revision petition, setting aside conviction and sentence, and granting permission to compound the offence under Section 138 NI Act.

Faizal K.B Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 8TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1111 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 184/2017 DATED 14-012019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 98/2014 DATED 07-09-2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, ETTUMANUR

¶8

PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

FAIZAL K.B AGED 34 YEARS S/O. BASHEER, HOUSE NO.36/277, KULIA HOUSE, FRIENDS ROAD, DESHABHIMANI, KALOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PROPRIETOR, BMC TRADING COMPANY, HOUSE NO.36/277, ASOKA ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI.

¶10

BY ADV. SHRI.ESM.KABEER

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDETNS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

2 M/S. PULIMOOTTIL AGENCIES, KIDANGOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, THOMAS MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA P.O, 685581.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SMT.C.SHEEBA

¶15

SRI C K PRASAD-PP

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl. R.P No.1111 of 2019

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The revision petitioner is the accused in the case S.T No.98/2014 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ettumanoor.

¶21

The trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,92,959/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. It was also directed that, if the fine amount was realised, it shall be given to the complainant as compensation.

¶22

The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.184/2017 before the Court of Session, Kottayam challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial court. The appellate court confirmed the conviction as well as the

¶23

¶24

Crl. R.P No.1111 of 2019

¶25

sentence and dismissed the appeal.

¶26

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of guilty, conviction and sentence made against him by the courts below, the accused has filed this revision petition.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the second respondent/complainant.

¶28

During the pendency of the revision petition, the parties have settled the matter between them. Crl.M.A.No.1/2020 is filed for granting permission to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act. This petition is signed by the petitioner/accused and the managing partner of the complainant firm as well as their counsel. I am satisfied that the settlement arrived at between the parties is genuine. Therefore, permission is granted to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Compounding of the offence is recorded in Crl.M.A.No.1/2020.

¶29

Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused by the trial court, which stands affirmed by the appellate court, is set aside. Compounding of the offence

¶30

¶31

Crl. R.P No.1111 of 2019

¶32

will have the effect of acquittal of the petitioner/accused under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

rpk

Faizal K.B v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faizal K.B 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tony Paul Vs v.Anilkumar

Viswanathan Nechully Vs State of Kerala

Sudhamol P.V. Vs Mariamma Varghese

Poornima Vs Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Co. (P) Limited

Sajith Rahman.v.a Vs State of Kerala

Sindu.S Vs Chinnamma Thomas