Kerala High Court
C.N Achutan Nairs/O. Mp Narayanan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 25 October, 2016
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1425 of 2016 ()
--------------------------------
CRA 161/2012 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM
ST 133/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-X,
TRIVANDRUM
--------
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
----------------------------------------
C.N ACHUTAN NAIRS/O. MP NARAYANAN NAIR
T C 13/194(II),KANIKONNA, PETTAH P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 24
BY ADVS.SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
SMT.K.R.RIJA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031
2. ANILKUMAR, TC 29/1382(2)
KAVARADY, PALAKULANGARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C. BINEESH
R2 BY ADV. SMT.BREJITHA UNNIKRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl. R. P. No. 1425 of 2016
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of October, 2016
O R D E R
The revision petitioner assails the conviction and sentence in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The revision petitioner was found guilty and convicted by the trial court which was upheld in appeal with certain modifications. This is challenged in this revision.
2. When the matter was taken up, both sides submitted that the disputes between the parties have been settled and the entire amount due has been paid. A petition for compounding has been filed as Crl.M.A. No.6529/2016.
3. After hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the parties have voluntarily and amicably resolved their disputes. Hence, I am inclined to permit the parties to compound the offence. Hence, Crl.M.A. No.6529/2016 is allowed. This will have the effect the acquittal of the accused.
4. In the light of the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Seyed Babalal H. (2010 (5) Supreme Court Cases 663) the cost is liable to be paid on composition at the rate of 15% of the cheque amount. The learned counsel for the Crl. R. P. No. 1425 of 2016 2 petitioner submitted that, he is in extreme financial difficulty and the amount was raised with great difficulty. He sought for a lenient view to be taken.
5. Having regard to the entire facts, I feel that, a sum of 5,000/- payable by the petitioner herein as cost to the KELSA will serve the interest of justice.
Hence, Crl. R.P. is allowed and the accused is acquitted, by directing the petitioner herein to deposit 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) before the Kerala Legal Service Authority, Ernakulam within 15 days from today and to produce the receipt before this Court.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.
/true copy/ P. A. to Judge Pn