Kerala High Court
Crl.Rev.Pet/1287/2019 of THE KAIRALI TOURISM DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2019
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1287 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 229/2011 DATED 11-07-2014 OF COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-II), KALPETTA AGAINST THE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1287 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 229/2011 DATED 11-07-2014 OF COURT OFTHE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-II), KALPETTA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 1255/2008 DATED 28-10-2011 OF JUDICIALMAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS- I ,SULTHAN BATHERY
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO. 1 & 3:
1THE KAIRALI TOURISM DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,REG.NO.249/05, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REG.NO.249/05, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MADADIYOORKUNI, KALPETTA POST.
2N.S ANIL KUMAR,S/O. SIVARAJAN, NADUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MOOLANKAVU POST,SUTLHAN BATHERY.
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 682031.REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 682031.
2V.S.CHANDRAN,S/O. SANKARAN, VELLIMUTTOM HOUSE, NEAR SUB STATION, SULTHAN BATHERY.S/O. SANKARAN, VELLIMUTTOM HOUSE, NEAR SUB STATION, SULTHAN BATHERY.
R2 BY ADV. V.VINARPP.AJITH MURALI
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 31.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
The revision petitioners challenge theconviction and sentence in S.T.No.1255/2008 ofthe Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I,Sulthan Bathery, as modified in the judgment incriminal appeal no.229/2011 of the AdditionalSessions Judge (Adhoc II), Kalpetta, by whichthey stand convicted for offence punishable underSection 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Thecase of the defacto complainant was that, theaccused had delivered a cheque to the complainanttowards the discharge of a legally enforceabledebt. The cheque, on presentation was dishonouredon ground insufficiency of funds. After issuingthe statutory notice, complaint was laid. On theside of the complainant evidence was let in. TheCourt below found the accused guilty, convictedand sentenced them.
2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentencethe accused had preferred the appeal. The courtbelow by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal in part. While confirming the conviction, sentence was modified to one of imprisonment tillrising of Court and to pay fine. This ischallenged in this revision.
3. Pending the proceedings the parties haveentered into a settlement Criminal M.A.No.3/2019has been preferred by the revision petitionersseeking permission to compound the offence on thestrength of settlement. The complainant onappearance submitted that, the matter has beensettled between them.
4. Having heard both sides, I am satisfiedthat the parties have voluntarily and amicablysettled their dispute. Hence the compositionsought is only to be allowed. AccordinglyCrl.M.A.No.3/2019 is allowed.
5. Petitioners have filed Crl.M.A.No.6/2019seeking permission to waive the penalty liable tobe paid in the light of the judgment of theHon'ble Supreme Court inDamodar S.Prabhu Vs.Sayed Babalal, [AIR 2010 SC 1907[. According tothe petitioners, they are not in the position topay the cost due to huge financial difficulties.Considering the fact that the 1[st]revisionpetitioner is the society, I am inclined to takea lenient view. Crl.M.A.No.6/2019 is allowed.
In the result Crl.R.P is allowed. The partiesare permitted to compound the offence. This willhave the effect of acquittal of the accused. Theystand acquitted. Bail bond stands discharged.
Sd/-SUNIL THOMASJUDGE