Allowed

V.Salahudheen Ayoobi, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Oct 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/485/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition challenging a conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the High Court allowed the petition after the offence was compounded before the Court exercised its power under Section 320 Cr.P.C., setting aside the judgments and acquitting the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

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

V.Salahudheen Ayoobi, 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.485 OF 2020

¶6

Crl.A 5/2004 DATED 31-07-2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT

¶7

(ADHOC)-III, MANJERI

¶8

CC 688/2003 DATED 06-12-2003 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶10

V.SALAHUDHEEN AYOOBI, AGED 44 YEARS

¶11

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

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.

¶15

2 VILLAN ABDURAHIMAN

¶16

S/O KUNHEEDU, PONMALA AMSOM, DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 528.

¶17

R2 BY ADV. K.S.PRAVEEN

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SR.PP.AMJAD ALI

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.485 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Dated this the 6^th day of October , 2020

¶25

The revision petitioner was the accused in

¶26

C.C.No.688 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.

¶27

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 two months and to pay an amount of Rs.1,70,000/as compensation, with default sentence of two months. The compensation was directed to be given to the second respondent as provided under Section

¶28

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.485 OF 2020 3

¶29

357(3) Cr.P.C. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the appellate court confirmed his conviction and sentence. Aggrieved, this Crl.R.P is filed.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

In the result, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned judgments are set aside and

¶33

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.485 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

the petitioner acquitted. The bail bond executed

¶36

by the petitioner will stand cancelled.

¶37

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶38

Scl/06.10.2020

V.Salahudheen Ayoobi, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Salahudheen Ayoobi, 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 Ayoob Vs the State of Kerala

Sarath M.S. Vs State of Kerala