Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.T. SUDHAMANI versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.T. SUDHAMANI v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl Rev Pet No. 4088 of 2006(A) [2006] RD-KL 2651 (6 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 4088 of 2006(A)

1. K.T. SUDHAMANI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. K.K. JOSEPH, KALLUPURACKAL HOUSE,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

Dated :06/12/2006

O R D E R

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL.R.P. 4088 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 6th December, 2006

O R D E R

The petitioner was found guilty under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The conviction and sentence was challenged by the petitioner in appeal. The appeal was partly allowed and while confirming the conviction, the sentence was modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for three months.

2. Crl.M.A.No. 12596 of 2006 filed by the parties under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was allowed. In the result, the Crl. 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

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL.M.A.NO. 12596 OF 2006 IN CRL. R.P. 4088 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 6th December, 2006

O R D E R

The petitioner/accused and the second respondent/ complainant have filed this application jointly under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act seeking leave to compound the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . In the application, it is stated that the dispute is settled between the parties. The application is allowed. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL.R.P. 4088 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 23rd November , 2006

O R D E R

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for which the cheque is alleged to have been issued. Admit. Issue notice to the second respondent by special messenger. Public Prosecutor takes notice for the first respondent. Call for the records. Post the Crl. Revision Petition on 30.11.2006. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CRL.M.A. NO. 11744 OF 2006 IN CRL. R.P. 4088 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 23rd November , 2006

O R D E R

Execution of sentence is suspended on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ambalappuzha and also on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) before the trial court within a period of two months. The question whether the conviction is to be suspended will be decided after hearing the second respondent. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk

? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

+Crl MC No. 3776 of 2006() #1. CHACKO, S/O.MATHAI,
... Petitioner

2. SIVARAJAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN,

3. BENNY, S/O.VARKEY,

4. KESAVAN, S/O.NARAYANAN,

5. SASI, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,

6. MADHU, S/O.SOMAN,

7. SOMAN, S/O.KUMARAN,

8. SANTHOSH, S/O.NANDANAN,

9. RAJU, S/O.NARAYANAN,

10. SIVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN,

11. REJI, S/O.KOCHU VARKEY,

12. MONOY, S/O.KOCHU VARKEY,

13. SASI @ KUTTAI, S/O.KUNJAPPAN,

14. BINU, S/O.VARGHESE,

15. THAMPI, S/O.VARGHESE,

16. BIJU, S/O.VARGHESE,

17. SKARIA @ KUNJU, S/O.POULOSE,

18. MATHAI, S/O.SKARIYA,

19. MATHAI, S/O.ULAHANNAN,

20. SASI, S/O.KUNJAPPAN,

21. XAVIER, S/O.JOSEPH,

Vs

$1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

! For Petitioner :SRI. JOHN K. GEORGE

For Respondent : No Appearance

*Coram

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

% Dated :08/12/2006

: O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.NO. 3776 OF 2006

Dated this the 8th day of December, 2006

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused in a prosecution, inter alia, under Sec.307 read with Sec.149 of the IPC. In that case, the Investigating Officer - P.W.39 has been examined. After such examination, the learned Public Prosecutor filed an application to recall P.W.39 and the said application stands allowed under Annexure-III order. The petitioners had also filed Annxure-II petition - Crl.M.P.No.5043/06, to recall as many as 17 witnesses for the purpose of further cross- examination. The short grievance of the petitioners is that though Annexure-III order has been passed, no orders have been passed on their application.

2. I have no hesitation to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that Annexure-II petition deserves to be disposed of on merits. The learned Sessions Judge shall pass appropriate orders on Annexure-II application at the earliest - within a period of 10 days from the date on which a copy of CRL.M.C.NO. 3776 OF 2006 -: 2 :- this order is placed before the learned Sessions Judge.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that examination of P.W.39, under Annexure-III, may be permitted to take place only after the prayer to recall the prosecution witnesses is considered and decided. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if the witnesses were recalled subsequent to the further examination of P.W.39, P.W.39 may have to be further recalled again, if necessary, after cross- examination of the witnesses already examined on the side of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge must take this into consideration and decide the timing for examination of P.W.39.

4. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is allowed in part.

5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/ /true copy/ P.S. To Judge


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.