Allowed

Ashraf.P.K v. Nk Panicker @ N Krishna Panicker

Kerala HC17 Oct 2022Crl.Rev.Pet/511/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The revision against conviction in a cheque bounce case was allowed because the offence was compounded amicably between the parties. The court set aside the conviction and sentence and cancelled bail, waiving the deposit of 15% cost.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused at liberty; bail cancelled; compounding allowed; deposit of cost waived.

Ashraf.P.K Vs Nk Panicker @ N Krishna Panicker — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 25TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 511 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCRA 668/2007 OF ADDITIONAL

¶7

DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KOZHIKODE

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 120/2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, PERAMBRA CONFIRMED BY JUDGMENT DT.06.07.2008 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.668 OF 2007

¶9

PASSED BY THE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, FAST

¶10

TRACK(AD HOC-II), KOZHIKODE)

¶11

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶12

ASHRAF.P.K AGED 49 YEARS SON OF AMMEDKOYA, OCHATH HOUSE, BALUSSERY.P.O, KOZHIKKODE,

¶13

BY ADVS. M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN K.S.RAJESH

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1 N.K. PANICKER @ N KRISHNA PANICKER AGED 87 YEARS SON OF SANKARAN NAIR, NALEVALAPPIL, PUTHOORVATTAM, BALUSSERY, KOYILANDY TALUK, PIN - 673612

¶16

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶17

BY ADV M.SUKUMARAN SRI.T.R.RENJITH, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR

¶19

ADMISSION ON 17.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

CRL.R.P. NO.511 OF 2022

¶21

-:2:-

¶22

Crl.R.P.No.511 of 2022

¶23

--------------------------------------------------------

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This is a revision petition filed under Sections

¶26

397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging conviction entered into by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra in C.C.No.120 of 2006 and confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track(Adhoc-II), Kozhikode as per judgment dated 08.07.2008 in Crl.Appeal No.668 of 2007.

¶27

Heard Adv.Sri.Shaju Purushothaman

¶28

appearing for the revision petitioner and also Adv.Sri.K.I.Sageer Ibrahim who represents

¶29

Adv.Sri.M.Sukumaran who filed vakalath for the first

¶30

CRL.R.P. NO.511 OF 2022

¶31

-:3:-

¶32

respondent/the original complainant.

¶33

As the matter has been amicably settled,

¶34

the revision petitioner as well as the first respondent/the original complainant jointly filed Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2022 to compound the offence along with the revision petition. They also filed Crl.M.A.No.4 of 2022 to grant exemption from payment of 15% of the cheque amount as cost for compounding the offence, highlighting the financial crisis of the revision petitioner.

¶35

Since the grounds raised seeking

¶36

exemption to deposit the cost found to be convincing, deposit of cost stands waived.

¶37

Compounding an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I.Act) is permissible at any stage since the same is a deemed offence. Therefore, there is no reason to disallow the

¶38

CRL.R.P. NO.511 OF 2022 -:4:-

¶39

compounding petition. Since the parties settled the matter, the compounding has the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, compounding as sought for in Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2022 is allowed.

¶40

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed as compounded and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court as well as the appellate court under Section 138 of the N.I.Act stand set aside and the revision petitioner/accused is at liberty, forthwith, and his bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶43

rkj

Ashraf.P.K v. Nk Panicker @ N Krishna Panicker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf.P.K v. Nk Panicker @ N Krishna Panicker

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

Ambika C.R Vs a. Balakrishnan

A.M.Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

M.P. Balakrishnan Vs Raveena Mahesh

Dr. Lal Kurien Vs State of Kerala

Dinesh Thomas Vs Jessymol Varghese

P.Jayarajan Vs v.Surendran