Criminal Revision Petition No. 1801 of 2010 · Kerala High Court · 2010
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 02 Sep 2010
- Bench
- V K MOHANAN
Outcome
Allowed
Revision petition is allowedsetting aside the judgment dated 18
Provisions considered
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 s. 147
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 320(8)
Judgment
V.K.MOHANAN, J.------------------------- Crl.M.A.No.8175 of 2010inCrl.R.P.No.1801 of 2010---------------------------------Dated this the 2nd day of September 2010
O R D E RCrl.M.A.No.8175 of 2010 This is a petition filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to compound the offence. The dispute is the subject matter of the Crl.R.P. Theoffence is under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. In the petition, it is stated that the matter has been settled out of court and the revision petitioner paid entire cheque amount to therespondent/complainant and the entire matter was settled between the parties and the respondent/complainant is not having any further grievance against the revision petitioner. 2. The revision petitioner was permitted to file the compounding petition on producing the receipt showing the Crl.M.A.No.8175 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No.1801 of 2010-: 2 :-remittance of Rs.3,500/- in the KELSA, in the light of the discretion granted to this court by the Apex court in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC457]. The revision petitioner has already paid the above amount to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, and the receipt vide No.100 dated 20.8.2010 is produced.
As Iam satisfied with the terms and the averments contained in the compounding petition, which is signed by the revision petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent and countersigned by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition is recorded. Crl.R.P.No.1801 of 2010 The revision petitioner is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act and the trial court as well as the lower appellate court found that the accused is guilty and accordingly he is convicted and Crl.M.A.No.8175 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No.1801 of 2010-: 3 :-sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No.8175/10,this court allowed the parties to compound the offence and accordingly, the composition of the said offence is recorded. The revision petitioner has also complied with the condition of paying cost, as fixed by this court, on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v.
Operative part
Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC457]. In the light of the composition of the offence between the contesting parties, I am of the view that this Crl. R.Pcan be allowed, acquitting the accused in terms of Section320(8) of Cr.P.C.In the result, this Crl. Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 18.11.2008 inS.T.No.3032/2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III,Palakkad and the judgment dated 23.12.2009 in Crl.A.No.783/2008 of the court of Sessions Judge, PalakkadDivision and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the Crl.M.A.No.8175 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No.1801 of 2010-: 4 :-charges levelled against him in the above case and he is set at liberty. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.Jvt
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Revision petition is allowedsetting aside the judgment dated 18
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 147; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 320(8).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 02 Sep 2010. The bench was V K MOHANAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.