Allowed

V.D.Mathew v. John v.D.*

Kerala HC24 May 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/2638/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition and acquitted the petitioner. The previous conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were set aside due to a settlement agreed upon by the parties and the long delay since the incident.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; revision petitioner acquitted; costs suggested in Damodar S. Prabu entirely waived.

V.D.Mathew Vs John v.D.* — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2638 OF 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO. 250/2001 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM IN C.C.NO.877/1999 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I,KANJIRAPPALLY

¶4

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:

¶5

V.D.MATHEW
AGE 65
S/O. DEVASIA, MAKAYIL HOUSE
MATTAKKARA P.O, KOTTAYAM

¶6

BY ADV SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

¶7

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ACCUSED & STATE:

¶8

1JOHN V.D.
(* EXPIRED)
S/O DEVASIA, VADAKEDATHU,
MATTAKKARA, KOTTAYAM

¶9

2STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA ,ERNAKULAM
3BABU SEBASTIAN
S/O VD JOHN,
VADAKKEDATHU HOUSE,
MATTAKKARA P.O,
KOTTAYAM - 686564 (ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 22/01/2020 IN CRL.M.A. 1/2020 IN CRL.R.P.
2638/2003)
BY ADV
TOM E. JACOB

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

Sri. C.N.PRABHAKARAN
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶13

FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl. R.P. No.2638 of 2003

¶15

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ==================== Crl. R.P. No.2638 of 2003

¶17

===================== Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Revision petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.877/1999 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kanjirappally. He was found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In the appeal preferred as Crl.A.No.250/2001 before the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam, the conviction was confirmed but the sentence was modified to simple imprisonment for one month and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, this revision petition has been preferred.

¶20

During the pendency of this revision petition, the complainant who is arrayed as first respondent herein died and his legal heir was impleaded as additional 3^rd respondent by order dated 22.01.2020. In the meantime, 3^rd respondent and the revision petitioner is purported to have entered into a settlement. Consequent to the settlement, Crl.M.A.No.1/2022 was filed seeking to compound the offence based upon the said settlement.

¶21

In the decision in Damodar S. Prabu v. Sayed Babalal H.

¶22

Crl. R.P. No.2638 of 2003

¶23

¶24

[2010 (5) SCC 663], Supreme Court had issued guidelines to be followed for compounding the offences and directed costs to be imposed at different rates for different levels at which the matter is settled. It was further observed in the aforesaid judgment that, imposition of costs is a matter of discretion by the competent court and the same can even be reduced, based upon specific facts and circumstances of the case. Subsequently, in the decision in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain and Another [2014 (10) SCC 690], Supreme Court went on to observe that the court can, not only reduce the costs but can even waive the same.

¶25

A perusal of the facts in the instant case, reveal that the accused is alleged to have issued a cheque dated 12.10.1999 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the complainant which, on presentation was dishonoured. Almost 24 years have elapsed since, the cheque was presented. The complainant expired and the matter has been settled with the legal heir of the said complainant. Having regard to the long period that has elapsed, since the presentation of the cheque and taking note of the settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the view that this is a fit case where the settlement arrived at between the parties can be acted upon and the costs suggested by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabu (Supra) can be entirely waived on.

¶26

In view of the above, on the basis of settlement arrived at

¶27

Crl. R.P. No.2638 of 2003

¶28

¶29

between the parties, as accepted by this Court in the order in Crl.M.A. No.1/2022, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner in C.C.No.877/1999 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kanjirappally as confirmed by judgment dated 08.08.2003 in Crl.A.No.250/2001 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam, is hereby set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted. Criminal revision petition is allowed as above.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶32

jka/24.05.23.

V.D.Mathew v. John v.D.*

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.D.Mathew v. John v.D.*

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meethale Rayaroth Sreedharan Vs Circle Inspector of Excise

Iyappan Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Raj Pallissery, Vs the State of Kerala

Geetha Vs State of Kerala

Sheela Mathew W/O Mathew Vs the C.I. of Police