Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.NANDAKUMAR, S/O.K.K.KAIMAL versus M/S.SEVEN SEAL FINANCIERS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.NANDAKUMAR, S/O.K.K.KAIMAL v. M/S.SEVEN SEAL FINANCIERS - Crl Rev Pet No. 3616 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 735 (10 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 3616 of 2006()

1. M.NANDAKUMAR, S/O.K.K.KAIMAL,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. M/S.SEVEN SEAL FINANCIERS,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

For Respondent :SRI.P.K.SAJEEV

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

Dated :10/01/2007

O R D E R

K. HEMA, J.

=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.= Crl.R.P. No.3616 of 2006 =.=.=.=.=.=.=.==.=..=.==.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.

Dated this the 10th day of January, 2007.

ORDER

Revision Petitioner is the accused in S.T. No. 783 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Firsts Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur. First respondent is the complainant therein. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate's Court to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation. In appeal filed by him, the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Addl. Sessions Court. 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.121/2007 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. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw Rs.25,000/-, which is in deposit before the trial court. This request is not opposed. Hence, petitioner is allowed to withdraw the amount in deposit. The trial court is directed to release the amount to the petitioner. In the result, 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.121/2007 and Revision Petition are allowed.

Krs. K. HEMA, 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.