Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.C. SHAJI, S/O. BHASKARAN @ RAMAN versus SISILY MABLE, W/O. EDWARD SAMUEL

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.C. SHAJI, S/O. BHASKARAN @ RAMAN v. SISILY MABLE, W/O. EDWARD SAMUEL - Crl Rev Pet No. 3162 of 2006(A) [2006] RD-KL 3224 (12 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 3162 of 2006(A)

1. P.C. SHAJI, S/O. BHASKARAN @ RAMAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SISILY MABLE, W/O. EDWARD SAMUEL,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

For Petitioner :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

Dated :12/12/2006

O R D E R

K. HEMA, J.

CRL. R.P. NO. 3162 OF 2006

Dated this the 12th day of December, 2006.

O R D E R

Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. No. 477 of 2004 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode. First respondent is the complainant therein. Revision petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced by the Magistrate's Court to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the complainant. In appeal filed by him, the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Additional District & Sessions Court, Kozhikode. This revision arises from the said conviction and sentence.

2. At the time of hearing, both sides submitted that a petition as Crl. M.A. No. 12836 of 2006 is filed for compounding the offence. It is also submitted by both sides that the matter is settled out of court amicably between the parties and the amount involved is also paid by the petitioner to the first respondent. On hearing both sides and on going through the averments in the petition, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to grant permission to compound the offence.

3. Both sides agreed that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- which is in deposit before the trial court can be released to the petitioner. CRL. R.P. 3162 / 2006 2 Hence, the trial court shall release the amount to the revision petitioner. In the result,

i) Revision petitioner is acquitted of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as offence is compounded. He is set at liberty forthwith. ii) The trial court is directed to release the amount in deposit to the revision petitioner. Crl. M.A.No.12836 of 2006 and revision petition are allowed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

smp


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.