Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURESH KUMAR G. versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SURESH KUMAR G. v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl Rev Pet No. 4184 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 2063 (28 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 4184 of 2006()

1. SURESH KUMAR.G.
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :28/11/2006

O R D E R

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL. R.P. 4184 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 28th November , 2006

O R D E R

The petitioner was found guilty of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . The trial court sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. On appeal, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.

2. Crl.M.A.No. 12097 of 2006 was filed by the complainant as well as the accused under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that application was allowed. In the result, the Crl. Revision Petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused are set aside and he is acquitted under section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk CRL.R.P. 4184 OF 2006 2

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL. M.A.No. 12097 OF 2006 IN CRL. R.P.No. 4184 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 28th November , 2006

O R D E R

This is an application filed under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act seeking permission to compound the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The application is signed by the complainant as well as the accused and their counsel. It is stated in the application that the dispute between the parties is settled. Hence the application is allowed. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk CRL.R.P. 4184 OF 2006 3

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL. M.A.No. 11827 OF 2006 IN CRL. R.P. 4184 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 28th November , 2006

O R D E R

This is an application to condone the delay of 92 days in filing the Revision Petition. The parties have settled the dispute and have filed an application under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Number the Crl. Revision Petition and the application filed under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk

? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

+Crl Rev Pet No. 4181 of 2006() #1. E.Y.NAJEEB, S/O. YOOSUF,
... Petitioner

Vs

$1. MANOJ V.D., S/O. DAMODARAN,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

! For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.MOIDEEN

For Respondent :SRI.JOHN JUDE ISSAC

*Coram

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

% Dated :28/11/2006

: O R D E R

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL. R.P. 4181 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 28th November , 2006

O R D E R

The petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 90,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default of payment of compensation , to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence in Appeal. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the Appeal.

2. Crl.M.A.No. 12089 of 2006 filed by the parties under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was allowed. Accordingly, Crl. Revision Petition is allowed. The conviction and the sentence imposed on the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted under section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crl. Revision Petition is disposed of as above. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk CRL.R.P. 4181 OF 2006 2

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL. M.A.No. 12089 OF 2006 IN CRL. R.P.No. 4181 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 28th November , 2006

O R D E R

This is an application filed by the petitioner/accused and the first respondent/complainant under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, seeking permission to compound the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is stated in the application that the dispute between the parties is settled and that Annexure-I agreement was executed. As per the terms of compromise, the first respondent/ complainant is entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited by the revision petitioner before the trial court . Compromise is recorded and the petition is allowed. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk CRL.R.P. 4181 OF 2006 3

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL. R.P. 4181 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 28th November , 2006

O R D E R

The Revision is filed against the judgment dated 21.06.2006. Free copy was issued on 17.11.2006. The Registry noted a defect that the Revision is time barred. It was replied by the counsel for the petitioner stating that the copy was ready only on 17.11.2006. There is no endorsement on the free copy as to when the copy was ready and whether any application was submitted by the petitioner for issue of the copy. It is also not noted as to whether any date was notified for receiving the copy. I have held in Ouso and others. vs. Cheekku and another (Un- numbered Crl.R.P. of 2006 filed against Crl. Appeal. 279 of 2005 on the file of the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam) that a free copy issued under section 363 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should CRL.R.P. 4181 OF 2006 4 contain necessary endorsements to facilitate computation of the period of limitation. Since necessary endorsements are absent on the copy produced along with the memorandum of Revision, I hold that the Revision is not time barred. Number the Crl. Revision Petition and the application filed under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk CRL.R.P. 4181 OF 2006 5

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL. R.P. 4181 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 28th November , 2006

O R D E R


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.