Mobile View
Main Search Forums 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