Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.B. MATHEW, KURISUPARAMBIL HOUSE versus KERALA VYAPARY VYAVASAYA EKOPANA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.B. MATHEW, KURISUPARAMBIL HOUSE v. KERALA VYAPARY VYAVASAYA EKOPANA - Crl Rev Pet No. 4587 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 4088 (21 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 4587 of 2006()

1. K.B. MATHEW, KURISUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KERALA VYAPARY VYAVASAYA EKOPANA
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

For Respondent :SRI.T.A.GEORGE JOSEPH

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

Dated :21/12/2006

O R D E R

K. HEMA, J.

Crl. R.P. No. 4587 of 2006

Dated this the 21st day of December 2006

O R D E R

Admitted. Adv. T.A. George Joseph takes notice for first respondent. Public Prosecutor takes notice for second respondent. The revision petitioner is the accused in CC. No. 166 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kochi. 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 two months and to pay compensation of Rs. 22,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. In appeal filed by him, the conviction was confirmed but sentence was modified by the Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. 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. 13323 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. The revision petitioner is acquitted of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as offence is compounded. He is set at liberty forthwith. Crl.M.A.No.13323 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.