MARTINE JOSEPH, MARKETING PARTNER versus JOSEPH JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

MARTINE JOSEPH, MARKETING PARTNER v. JOSEPH JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH - Crl Rev Pet No. 3966 of 2006(A) [2006] RD-KL 3573 (15 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 3966 of 2006(A)

1. MARTINE JOSEPH, MARKETING PARTNER,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. JOSEPH JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,
... Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

Dated :15/12/2006

O R D E R

K. HEMA, J.

CRL. R.P NO. 3966 OF 2006

Dated this the 15th day of December, 2006.

O R D E R

Admit. First respondent enters appearance. This revision petition is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the respondent-complainant and in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The conviction and sentence were passed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. On a complaint filed by the first respondent-complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kottayam, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant and in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed in the appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam. Challenging the said conviction and sentence this revision petition is filed.

3. At the time of hearing, both sides submitted that the matter is settled amicably out of court and the entire amount is paid to the  CRL. R.P. 3966/2006 2 satisfaction of the complainant. They have also filed a petition as Crl. M.A. No. 12892 of 2006 to compound the offence. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that permission can be granted to compound the offence and I do so. Hence, the revision petitioner is acquitted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as compounded. He is set at liberty forthwith. Crl. M.A. 12892/2006 and revision petition are allowed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE

smp 

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

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.