Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.M.NOORUDHIN versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.M.NOORUDHIN v. THE STATE OF KERALA - Crl Rev Pet No. 2702 of 2003 [2006] RD-KL 4141 (21 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 2702 of 2003()

1. P.M.NOORUDHIN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. SRI.MURALIDHARAN NAIR,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU

For Respondent :SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

Dated :21/12/2006

O R D E R

K. HEMA, J.

Crl. R.P. No. 2702 of 2003

Dated this the 21st day of December 2006

O R D E R

The revision petitioner is the accused in CC. No. 266 of 2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erattupetta. Second respondent is the complainant therein. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate's Court to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . In appeal filed by him, the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Court, Kottayam. 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. 13229 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 second 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. It is also submitted by both parties that the amount deposited by revision petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erattupetta during the pendency of the proceedings can be ordered to be released to the second respondent-complainant. There is no ground to refuse this prayer. Crl. R.P. 2702 /2003 2 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 Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erattupetta is directed to release the amount in deposit to the second respondent. Crl. M.A.No.13229 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.