Allowed

K.C.Mathew v. Alleppey Parcel Service

Kerala HC27 Jan 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/838/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence after granting permission to compound the Section 138 offence, deeming the settlement genuine and resulting in petitioner acquittal under Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; permission granted to compound offence; effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

K.C.Mathew Vs Alleppey Parcel Service — 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

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 7TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.838 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 155/2018 DATED 29-032019 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 20/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, ALAPPUZHA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

¶9

K.C.MATHEW AGED 54 YEARS KARIMANKOTTU PUTHENVEEDU,

¶10

VALAKAM P.O., AYOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 532.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SHRI. SHIJOY JOHN MATHEW

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 ALLEPPEY PARCEL SERVICE MR. T.T. KURUVILA (PROPRIETOR), THOTTATHIL HOUSE VAZHICHEERY WARD, REPRESENTED BY V. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ASSISTANT MANAGER, THUNDIL THARAYIL HOUSE ALAPPUZHA 688 001.

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA

¶17

SRI AJITH MURALI-PP

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

Crl.R.P No.838 of 2019

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The revision petitioner is the accused in the case S.T No.20/2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Alappuzha.

¶23

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. The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.3,22,163/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The trial court also directed that, if the fine amount was realised, it shall be paid to the complainant as compensation.

¶24

The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.155/2018 before the Court of Session, Alappuzha challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial court. The appellate court confirmed the conviction as well as

¶25

¶26

Crl.R.P No.838 of 2019

¶27

the sentence and dismissed the appeal.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

During the pendency of the revision petition, the parties have settled the matter between them. Crl.M.A.No.3/2020 is filed for granting permission to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act. This petition is signed by the petitioner as well as the authorized representative of the complainant company as well as their counsel. I am satisfied that the settlement arrived at between

¶31

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.3/2020.

¶32

In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, is set

¶33

¶34

Crl.R.P No.838 of 2019

¶35

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

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

JUDGE

rpk

Crl.R.P No.838 of 2019

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

ANNEXURE P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 13/01/2020.

K.C.Mathew v. Alleppey Parcel Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.C.Mathew v. Alleppey Parcel Service

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

Hakeem Rahman, Vs State of Kerala

Surendran.M Vs C.Mohanan

Sreekantan, Vs Valsala

Tony Paul Vs v.Anilkumar

Viswanathan Nechully Vs State of Kerala

Sudhamol P.V. Vs Mariamma Varghese