Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 9 docs - [View All]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Damodar S.Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H on 3 May, 2010
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The Indian Penal Code
Section 147 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

User Queries
View the actual judgment from court
Kerala High Court
Revision vs By Adv. Sri.K.Sunilkumar on 28 October, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                         PRESENT:

                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

            FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2013/10TH PHALGUNA 1934

                              Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 402 of 2013 ()
                               -------------------------------

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA.277/2011 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT
(ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM DATED 28-10-2011

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC.118/2009 of J.M.F.C. - II, PERUMBAVOOR DATED
18-04-2011


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------------------------

         E.V.ELIAS, AGED 42 YEARS
         S/O.VARGHESE
         PUTHUSSERY VADUVILE VEEDU (KAKKOTTU CHALIL
         KIZHAKKE PUTHEN PURAYIL)
         KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANNOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

         BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE :
------------------------------------------------------

       1. V.K.ANSAR
         VALAPPIL THACHAYIL HOUSE, CHELAKKULAM KARA
         PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE-683542.

       2. STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
         HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682635.

         R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SOMASEKHARAN PILLAI
         R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMACHANDRAN

         THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:


uj.



                         K. HARILAL,J.
                ======================
                   Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013
                               in
                    Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013
                ======================
              Dated this the 1st day of March, 2013

                          O R D E R

      The petitioner herein is the Revision Petitioner in the

above Criminal Revision Petition. The above Criminal

Revision Petition was filed challenging the conviction

entered and sentence imposed on the petitioner             in

C.C.No.118/2009 by       the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court-II, Perumbavoor. In appeal,        the conviction was

confirmed and the sentence was modified to imprisonment

till rising of the court by the Addl. Sessions Court (Adhoc-

I) , Ernakulam.

      2.   The Revision Petitioner was prosecuted for an

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, on a complaint filed by the 1st respondent.

After trial, the learned Magistrate found the Revision

Petitioner guilty of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted thereunder. He

Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013
in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013
                                  2

was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three

months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the

complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for three months.               The

learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part,

confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence           of

imprisonment to imprisonment till rising of the court and to

pay compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- to the complainant under

Section 357(3)Cr.P.C. In default sentence was reduced to

two     months.         Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of

conviction entered and sentence imposed on the Revision

Petitioner, the above Criminal Revision Petition was filed on

various grounds.

       3.   Now the Revision Petitioner along with the 1st

respondent filed Crl.M.Application No.1522/2013 under

Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with

Section 320 Cr.P.C. to compound the offence for which

conviction and sentence imposed.          In the petition, it is

specifically stated that the parties have settled the matter

between them and now 1st respondent does not have any

Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013
in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013
                                    3

grievance or claim against the Revision petitioner and he is

agreeable        to    compound    the     offence accepting this

compounding petition.         It is also stated that the Revision

Petitioner has paid the cost as fixed by this Court to Kerala

State Legal Service Authority in compliance with the

decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed

Babalal H. (JT 2010(4) SC 457) and produced the receipt

along with the memo.            The learned counsel for the 1st

respondent submits that the averments stated in the

petition are true and correct and the 1st             respondent

received the amount in full.

       As I am satisfied with the terms and averments

contained in the compounding petition, which is signed by

the Revision Petitioner as well as the 1st respondent and

counter signed by their respective counsel, permission is

granted to compound the above offence and composition is

recorded.

                                              K. HARILAL, JUDGE
stu

                              //True copy//

                              P.A to judge.

Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013
in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013
                                4

Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013
in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013
                                    5




                             K. HARILAL,J.
                    ======================
                         Crl.M.Appl. No. 520 of 2013
                                   in
                         Crl.R.P. No. 149 of 2013
                    ======================
                 Dated this the 5th day of February, 2013

                               O R D E R

The petitioner herein is the Revision Petitioner in the above criminal revision petition. The above Criminal Revision Petition was filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed in S.T.No.41/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg and confirmed by the Sessions Court, Kasaragod.

2. The Revision Petitioner was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He pleaded not guilty. After trial, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay Rs. 60,000/- to the Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 6 complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The learned Sessions Judge also confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings imposing conviction and sentence on the petitioner, the above Criminal Revision Petition was filed on various grounds.

3. Now the petitioner along with the 1st respondent filed a petition under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to compound the offence for which conviction and sentence imposed. In the petition, it is specifically stated that, the 1st respondent has compounded the matter fully in accordance with his will and no compulsion or coercion from any corner for that. He received the claim amount to his satisfaction. It is also stated that the petitioner has paid the cost as fixed by this Court in compliance with the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (JT 2010(4) SC 457) and produced the receipt along with the memo. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the averments Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 7 stated in the petition are true and correct and the 1st respondent received the amount in full.

As I am satisfied with the terms and averments contained in the compounding petition, which is signed by the Revision Petitioner as well as the 1st respondent and counter signed by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and composition is recorded.

K. HARILAL, JUDGE ks.

Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 8 K. HARILAL,J.

====================== Crl.M.Appl. No. 545 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 156 of 2013 ====================== Dated this the 7th day of February, 2013 O R D E R Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 9 The petitioner herein is the Revision Petitioner in the above criminal revision petition. The above Criminal Revision Petition was filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed in S.T.No.125/07 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta and confirmed by the District and Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta.

2. The petitioner was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He pleaded not guilty. After trial, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The complainant was allowed to realise the above fine amount as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sessions Judge also confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings imposing conviction and sentence on the petitioner, the above Criminal Revision Petition was filed on various Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 10 grounds.

3. Now the petitioner along with the 2nd respondent filed a petition under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to compound the offence for which conviction and sentence imposed. In the petition, it is specifically stated that, the 2nd respondent has compounded the matter fully in accordance with his will and no compulsion or coercion from any corner for that. He received the claim amount to his satisfaction. It is also stated that the petitioner has paid the cost as fixed by this Court in compliance with the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (JT 2010(4) SC 457) and produced the receipt along with the memo. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the averments stated in the petition are true and correct and the 2nd respondent received the amount in full.

As I am satisfied with the terms and averments contained in the compounding petition, which is signed by the Revision Petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent and Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 11 counter signed by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and composition is recorded.

K. HARILAL, JUDGE stu