The High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the accused against conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour. granting permission to compound the offence upon settlement between parties, which resulted in the acquittal of the petitioner.
Conviction and sentence set aside; offence compounded; petitioner acquitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
WEDNESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 18TH POUSHA, 1941
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.534 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.No.119/2017 OF THE SPECIAL COURT OF SC/ST(POA) ACT CASES, MANJERI DATED 04.01.2019 ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.53/2017 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-III, MANJERI DATED 18-05-2017.
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
P.V.NAJEEB, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY, PULIVETTI HOUSE, AMARAMBALAM KADAVU.P.O., KALIKAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN-682031.
2 VETTATHU VISWANATHAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.VETTATHU BALAN NAIR, VETTATHU HOUSE, KALIKAVU AMSOM, DESOM, KALIKAVU.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676525. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN R2 BY ADV. SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE
SRI AJITH MURALI GP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.534/2019
2
ORDER
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2020
This revision petition is filed by the accused in the
case C.C. No. 53/2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate-III, Manjeri.
2.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
undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay
a fine of Rs. 2,24,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
The trial court also directed that if the fine amount was
realized, it shall be given to the complainant as
compensation.
3.The petitioner/accused filed Criminal Appeal
No.119/2017 challenging the order of conviction and
sentence passed against him by the trial court. The
Crl.R.P.No.534/2019
3
appellate court confirmed the conviction as well as the
sentence made against the petitioner by the trial court and
dismissed the appeal. The concurrent findings of guilty,
conviction and sentence made against the petitioner are
challenged in this revision petition.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
also the second respondent/complainant.
5. During the pendency of the revision petition, the
parties have settled the matter between them. Crl.M.A.
No.3/2019 is filed to grant permission to compound the
offence under Section 138 of the Act. This petition is signed
by the revision petitioner/accused as well as the
complainant/second respondent and also 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.3/2019.
In the result, the revision petition is allowed and it
Crl.R.P.No.534/2019
4
is ordered as follows. 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 will have the effect of acquittal
of the petitioner/accused under Section 320(8) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
Sd/-
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE
SR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petitioner should be acquitted after a settlement between parties under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.V.NAJEEB
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
VETTATHU VISWANATHAN
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court