Allowed

Salam v. Mulamoottil Leasing and Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd.

Kerala HC22 Jan 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/94/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed criminal revision petition concerning conviction for cheque dishonour. Petition included parties signing a compromise. Permission granted to compound offence, setting aside conviction and sentence, leading to acquittal and immediate release from imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; permission granted to compound; accused acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith from custody.

Salam Vs Mulamoottil Leasing and Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 2ND MAGHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.94 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 371/1998 DATED 17-10-2002 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 252/2002 DATED 16-11-2005 OF THE SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

SALAM

¶10

MUJEEB MANZIL, ROCKWOOD JUNCTION, KULATHUPUZHA.P.O.-691310.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1 MULAMOOTTIL LEASING AND HIRE PURCHASE PVT. LTD, KOZHENCHERRY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JACOB THOMAS, MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY-689641.

¶15

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

¶16

R1 BY ADV. ARUN.B.VARGHESE R2 BY SRI AJITH MURALI-PP

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.R.P.No.94 of 2020

¶19

¶20

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶21

Crl.R.P.No.94 of 2020

¶22

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2020

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The revision petitioner is the accused in the case C.C No. 371/1998 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class MagistrateI, Pathanamthitta.

¶25

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 simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also directed him to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and also ordered that, in default of payment of compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

¶26

The petitioner filed Crl.A. No. 252/2002 before the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial court. The appellate court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence and reduced it to

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.94 of 2020

¶28

¶29

simple imprisonment for a period of three months and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

¶30

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of guilty and conviction entered against him by the courts below and the sentence imposed on him by the appellate court, the accused has filed this revision petition.

¶31

5. During the pendency of this revision petition, the parties

¶32

have settled the matter between them. Crl.M.A. No.4/2020 is filed for granting permission to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act. This petition is signed by the petitioner/accused as well as the complainant/first respondent and also their counsel. I am satisfied that the settlement arrived at between the parities 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.4/2020.

¶33

In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order of conviction entered against the petitioner/accused by the trial court, which stands affirmed by the appellate court, is set aside. The

¶34

Crl.R.P.No.94 of 2020

¶35

¶36

sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused by the trial court, as modified by the appellate court, is also set aside. Compounding of the offence will have the effect of acquittal of the accused under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

¶37

It is submitted that the petitioner is undergoing sentence of imprisonment in execution of the sentence passed against him in this case. If the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment in execution of the sentence passed against him in this case and if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case, he shall be released

¶38

forthwith.

¶39

Sd/-R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

lsn

Salam v. Mulamoottil Leasing and Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salam v. Mulamoottil Leasing and Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd.

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

Shaju Jacob Vs M/S.Hdfc Bank Ltd.

The State of Kerala Vs Nazir Kalmatta

Sareena T.E., Vs State Ofkerala

James Peter, Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev Vs the State of Kerala

Mohammed Shahir Vs State of Kerala