Allowed

V.Salahudheen Ayoob v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Oct 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/484/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal revision petition in a cheque dishonour case where the offence was compounded after the petitioner's conviction. The court exercised powers under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C. to allow compounding and set aside the lower courts' judgments.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is allowed, the impugned judgments are set aside and the petitioner acquitted. The bail bond executed by the petitioner will stand cancelled.

V.Salahudheen Ayoob Vs the State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 14TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.484 OF 2020

¶6

Crl.A 176/2006 DATED 29-01-2008 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, MANJERI

¶7

ST 11997/2003 DATED 16-03-2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,MALAPPURAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶9

V.SALAHUDHEEN AYOOB AGED 44 YEARS

¶10

S/O. MAMMU HAJI, VILLAN HOUSE, URDU NAGAR, PONMALA P O, KODOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA

¶14

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

¶15

2 RAYINKUTTY S/O MOOSA, MELAPIDIYAN HOUSE, KACHINIKAD, MAKKARAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM-676 507

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SR.PP.AMJAD ALI

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR

¶19

ADMISSION ON 06.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED

¶20

THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.484 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Dated this the 6^th day of October , 2020

¶25

The revision petitioner was the accused in S.T.No.11997 of 2003 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram. The case originated from a complaint filed by the second respondent alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by the revision petitioner.

¶26

2. The trial court, on appreciation of the evidence and on consideration of the contentions, found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay an amount of Rs.1,70,000/as compensation, with default sentence of three months. The compensation was directed to be given to the second respondent as provided under Section

¶27

¶28

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.484 OF 2020

¶29

357(3) Cr.P.C. In the appeal preferred by the

¶30

petitioner, the appellate court confirmed his conviction and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to three months, retaining the direction to pay compensation. Aggrieved, this

¶31

Crl.R.P is filed.

¶32

2. The solitary contention urged by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that pending the revision petition, the offence was compounded and a compounding petition is filed. This fact is vouched by the learned Counsel for the second respondent/complainant also. I am inclined to grant the prayer for compounding, in exercise of the power vested with this Court under Section 320 (6) of Cr.P.C. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgments of the trial and appellate courts.

¶33

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.484 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

In the result, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned judgments are set aside and the petitioner acquitted. The bail bond executed by the petitioner will stand cancelled.

¶36

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶37

Scl/6.10.2020

V.Salahudheen Ayoob v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Salahudheen Ayoob v. the 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

Sudheesh .a Vs State of Kerala

Fakrudeen Ali Ahamed Vs the State of Kerala

Abhimanyu K.K Vs State of Kerala

Jeeshma.P., Vs Rajeevan.K.P.

V.Salahudheen Ayoobi, Vs the State of Kerala

Sarath M.S. Vs State of Kerala