Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.SURESH versus SHINOD KUMAR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.SURESH v. SHINOD KUMAR - Crl Rev Pet No. 4327 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 2530 (5 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 4327 of 2006()

1. K.SURESH
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SHINOD KUMAR
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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. 4327 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 5th December , 2006

O R D E R

The first respondent filed the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the revision petitioner. The trial court found the accused guilty of the offence and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months . The accused was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,09,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial court.

2. An application has been filed under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the petitioner/accused and the first respondent/ complainant seeking leave to compound the offence and that application was allowed. Accordingly, the Revision Petition 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. 4327 OF 2006 2

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL. M.A. No. 12292 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 5th December , 2006

O R D E R

The delay of 215 days in filing the revision petition is sought to be condoned in this application. It is stated in the affidavit accompanying the application that the petitioner was earnestly trying for settlement of the case. Now the matter is settled between the parties and an application for compounding is filed. Therefore, the delay is condoned. Number the Crl. Revision Petition as well as the application for compounding. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk CRL.R.P. 4327 OF 2006 3

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL. M.A. No. 12514 OF 2006 IN CRL. R.P.No. 4327 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 5th December , 2006

O R D E R

This application is filed under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the revision petitioner/accused and the first respondent/complainant seeking leave to compound the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is stated in the application that the matter is settled between the parties and the complainant has received the entire amount due to him from the accused. The application is allowed. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk

? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

+Crl Rev Pet No. 4385 of 2006() #1. CHATHANKANDY USMAN
... Petitioner

Vs

$1. C.NARAYANAN
... Respondent

! For Petitioner :SRI.PROMY KAPRAKKATT

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

*Coram

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

% Dated :07/12/2006

: O R D E R

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL. R.P.No. 4385 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 7h 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 one year. He was also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence .

2. Heard counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the first respondent . The petitioner is now undergoing imprisonment . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, that the petitioner is prepared to deposit the amount covered by the cheque, within a period of two months. It is submitted by the counsel that since the imprisonment for a period of one year is too harsh. It is pointed out that at present, there is no direction to pay compensation CRL. R.P. 4385 of 2006 2 amount as per the judgment of the courts below and that if compensation is awarded, that would redress the grievances of the first respondent/ complainant .

3. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to accept the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and to reduce the sentence of imprisonment as imprisonment till the rising of the court. However, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) as compensation to the first respondent/cm within a period of two months.

4. In the result, the Crl. Revision Petition is allowed in part, in the manner indicated below:

i) The conviction of the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. ii) The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. iii) The sentence to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- is set aside. iv) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation under section 357(3) of the Code of CRL. R.P. 4385 of 2006 3 Criminal Procedure and in default of payment of compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

v) However, the petitioner is granted two months' time to pay the amount of compensation . The petitioner shall be released from the jail forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. 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.