Kerala High Court
M/S. Kasargod Self Employees Finance vs B.A. Abdul Rahiman on 29 May, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2205 OF 2008 ( )
-----------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA NO.151/2004 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
(ADHOC)I, KASARAGOD DATED 29-05-2008
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.373/2002 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD DATED 26-03-2004
----------------
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED :
-----------------------------------------
1. M/S. KASARGOD SELF EMPLOYEES FINANCE
COMPANY LTD.,P.B.NO.76, VIKAS BHAVAN,
MADHUR ROAD, KARANDAKKAD,
KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT,
NOW RENAMED AS KASARAGOD ECO
INDUSTRIAL PARK AND TOURISM LTD.,
P.B.NO.76, VIKAS BHAVAN, MADHUR ROAD,
KARANDAKKAD, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2. T.V. GANGADHARAN, S/O LATE CHANDU,
MANAGING DIRECTOR, REPRESENTED BY THE
KASARAGOD SELF EMPLOYEES FINANCE COMPANY LTD.,
RESIDING AT JEEVAN JYOTHI,
KUDLU VILLAGE, RAMDAS NAGAR P.O., KASARAGOD.
3. K.SATHEESHAN, S/O KRISHNA KOMARA,
DIRECTOR, THE KASARAGOD SELF EMPLOYEES FINANCE LTD.,
NEAR BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, CERAMICS ROAD,
THALANGARA VILLAGE AND POST,
KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU
SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE :
---------------------------------
1. B.A. ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O ABDUL KHADER,
MURSHATH VILLA, BAVIKKARA,
POST MULIYAR, MULIYAR VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
** ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT IMPLEADED.
-2-
CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2205 OF 2008 ( )
3. SHRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN,
ADVOCATE, METRO PLAZA,
MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM-680 031.
IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER
DATED 07.12.2016 IN CRIMINAL M.A. NO.7256 OF 2016.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY
SRI.ABU MATHEW
SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY
SRI.H.B.SHENOY
SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE
SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
NS
P.D. RAJAN, J.
-------------------------
Crl. R.P. No.2205 of 2008
----------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2016
O R D E R
This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-1, Kasaragod. They were accused in C.C. No.373 of 2002 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod which was filed under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the NI Act). The learned Magistrate convicted the accused, sentenced A2 and A3 to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each under Sec.138 of the NI Act and directed A1 to A3 to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- each under Sec.357(3) Cr.P.C. Against that, they preferred the above Criminal Appeal, where the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred this revision petition.
2. When the matter came up for hearing, both parties submitted that they have settled the matter out of Crl. R.P. No.2205 of 2008 2 court for a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. They filed Criminal M.A. No.7608 of 2016 in which both parties have signed in the compromise petition. As per the compromise, today, the 2nd and 3rd revision petitioners paid Rs.50,000/- each by way of demand drafts. As the 1st revision petitioner is a company, the 3rd respondent is impleaded as official receiver of the company. He agreed to issue shares of the company equivalent to the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- to the 1st respondent. When both parties settled the matter, there is no harm in allowing the compromise petition.
3. According to Sec.147 of the NI Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C. every offence punishable under the NI Act shall be compoundable. According to Sec.320(6) Cr.P.C, a High Court or Court of Session 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 Crl. R.P. No.2205 of 2008 3 of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded under Sec.320(8) Cr.P.C.
4. In view of the compromise, the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod under Sec.138 of the NI Act are set aside. Accused are acquitted and set at liberty. The revision petitioners are directed to pay Rs.500/- to the High Court Legal Service Committee in compliance of the direction issued by the honourable Supreme Court in Damodar S Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. [2010 (2) KLT 587 (SC)].
This Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
P.D. RAJAN,
JUDGE
NS/08/12/2016 / True Copy /
P.A. To Judge