Kerala High Court
Girish.K.Kumar vs Satheesh Kumar Dhan on 19 November, 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/17TH KARTHIKA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 763 of 2008 ( )
--------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.884/2005 of
II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 19-11-2007
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 3760/2005 of J.M.F.C.IV (MOBILE),TVM.
DATED 26-11-2005
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
----------------------------------------
GIRISH.K.KUMAR,PROPREITOR,
RELATIONS ADVERTISING AND MARKETING, IST FLOOR,
SHALOM TOWER, MISSION QUARTERS JUNCTION, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SMT.ZEENA S.FERNANDEZ
SMT.GEETHA JOB(OZHUKAYIL)
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
----------------------------------------------
1. SATHEESH KUMAR DHAN
ASSISTANT MANAGER (MARKETING), M/S.SURYA T.V.(UNIT OF
SUN T.V.(P) LTD), PANICKER'S LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NARAYANAN NAIR
BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.D.CHANDRASENAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08-11-2016, ALONG WITH CRRP. 764/2008 & CON.CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
acd
P.D. RAJAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. Nos.763, 764, 776, 777, 779,
780, 781, 782, 783, 784 and 771 of 2008
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2016
ORDER
These revision petitions are preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl.Appeal Nos.874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 883 and 884/2005 of II Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. He was the accused in S.T.No.2433, 2434, 2435, 2820, 2821, 2822, 2823, 2824, 2825, 2826 and 3760/2005 respectively of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram, which were filed u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act). The learned Magistrate convicted the accused in all cases u/s.138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months in each cases and directed to pay the cheque amount of 48,960/- as Crl.R.P. No.763//2008 & con.cases 2 compensation u/s.357(3) Cr.P.C., in default simple imprisonment for one month and further directed to pay 1000/-eachinallcasesascoststo thecomplainantu/s.359 Cr.P.C., failing which simple imprisonment for ten days. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred the above appeals before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, where the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and confirmed the compensation amount imposed by the trial Court, in default, simple imprisonment for 11 months. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred these revision petitions.
2. The complainant's case in the trial Court was that the accused is the proprietor of an advertising agency, who used to place a number of advertisements to the complainant, M/s.Surya T.V., a unit of Sun T.V. Private Limited, a malayalam T.V. Channel engaged in telecast of various programs. On account of telecasting the programme, Crl.R.P. No.763//2008 & con.cases 3 the accused entrusted signed blank cheque leaves in discharge of a liability to the advertisement of 'Chandrika Soap' of S.V. Products. When it was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for the reason of funds insufficient. The complainant demanded the amount by giving a notice in writing, but there was no response from him. Hence the complaint. To prove the case, the complainant examined PW1 and PW2 and marked Exts.P1 to P94. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. He did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused.
3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that both parties have settled the matter out of Court for a total consideration of 5,39,000/- and filed Crl.M.A. No.6934/2016 in all cases. The revision petitioner and the authorised signatory of first respondent are present and they Crl.R.P. No.763//2008 & con.cases 4 have signed in the compromise petition. As part of the settlement, the revision petitioner entrusted D.D. for 3,19,000/- to the first respondent drawn on United Bank of India, Ernakulam branch in favour of Sun T.V. Net working Limited. He also submitted that an amount of 1,10,000/- each has been deposited in the trial Court as per the direction of this Court and the Sessions Court respectively. According to Section 147 of the N.I.Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, every offence punishable under the NI Act shall be compoundable. According to Section 320(6), a High Court or Court of Sessions while exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section. When the composition of offence under the Section is made, it shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.
Crl.R.P. No.763//2008 & con.cases 5
In view of the compromise, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court under Section 138 of N.I.Act is set aside. Accused is acquitted and set at liberty. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babulal (AIR 2010 SC 1907), the revision petitioner is directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the High Court Legal Service Committee today itself. The first respondent is directed to approach the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- IV,Thiruvananthapuram for getting the amount deposited in that Court as per the direction of II Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram and this Court. If such application is filed by the first respondent, the trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate order to disburse the amount to the first respondent forthwith. Revision petitions are disposed of as above.
P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.
acd