Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AZAD SINGH versus MUGHEES

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


AZAD SINGH v. MUGHEES - Crl Rev Pet No. 4324 of 2006(A) [2006] RD-KL 2506 (5 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 4324 of 2006(A)

1. AZAD SINGH
... Petitioner

Vs

1. MUGHEES
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER

For Respondent :SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

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

Dated :05/12/2006

O R D E R

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL. R.P.No. 4324 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 5th December , 2006

O R D E R

The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner was directed to pay compensation of of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellate court confirmed the conviction, but modified and reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The direction to pay compensation was confirmed.

2. An application under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for compounding the offence was filed by the petitioner/accused and the first respondent/ complainant and that application was allowed. Accordingly, the Revision Petiiton is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted under section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk CRL.R.P. 4324 OF 2006 2

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL. M.A. No. 12375 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 5th December , 2006

O R D E R

This is an application to condone the delay of 100 days in filing the revision petition. Though the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the petition are not fully satisfactory, taking into account the fact that the dispute between the parties has been settled and an application for compounding is filled, I am inclined to condone the delay. Therefore the application is allowed and delay is condoned. Number the Crl. Revision Petition as well as the application for compounding. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk CRL.R.P. 4324 OF 2006 3

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL. M.A. No. 12509 OF 2006 IN CRL. R.P.No. 4324 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 5th December , 2006

O R D E R

This is an application filed under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act seeking leave to compound the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The application is signed by the revision petitioner/accused and the first respondent/complainant as well as their counsel. It is stated therein that the dispute between the parties has been settled. The application is allowed. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk

? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

+Crl Rev Pet No. 4325 of 2006() #1. MOIDEEN MASTER
... Petitioner

Vs

$1. N.M.ASOKAN & ANOTHER
... Respondent

! For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.ANTONY

For Respondent :SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

*Coram

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

% Dated :05/12/2006

: O R D E R

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL. R.P.No. 4325 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 5th December , 2006

O R D E R

The petitioner was found guilty of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence in appeal. The appellate court confirmed the conviction, but the sentence was modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The direction to pay compensation was confirmed.

2. An application under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, signed by the revision petitioner/accused and the first CRL.R.P. 4325 OF 2006 2 respondent/complainant was filed seeking leave to compound the offence and that application was allowed. It is submitted that Rs. 5,000/- was deposited by the accused before the trial court as directed by the appellate court . The amount due to the complainant has now been paid and it is so recorded in the petition for compounding. It is therefore submitted that the sum of Rs. 5,000/- deposited in the trial court is to be released to the accused. In the result, the Crl. Revision Petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted under section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court shall release to the accused Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) which was deposited by him. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk CRL.R.P. 4325 OF 2006 3

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL. M.A. No. 12511 OF 2006 IN CRL. R.P.No. 4325 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 5th December , 2006

O R D E R

The petitioner/accused and the first respondent/complainant have filed this application under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for granting leave to compound the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . The application is signed by the revision CRL.R.P. 4325 OF 2006 4 petitioner and the first respondent as well as their counsel. It is stated in the application that the matter has been settled between the parties and the complainant has received the amount due to him in full and final settlement of accounts. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL. M.A. No. 12358 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 5th December , 2006

O R D E R

This petition is filed praying to condone the delay of 62 days in filing the revision petition. It is stated that the petitioner was undergoing continuous treatment for various ailments. Moreover, the parties have now settled the matter and a petition for compounding the offence is filed. CRL.R.P. 4325 OF 2006 5 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Number the Crl. Revision Petition and the petition filed under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for compounding the offence. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk


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.