Kerala High Court
Ajayan C.S vs Suresh Kumar on 4 July, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2017/21ST ASHADHA, 1939
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 823 of 2017 ()
-------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 588/2010 of ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
ADHOC III, PALAKKAD DATED 04-07-2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 450/2008 of J.M.F.C., PATTAMBI
DATED 25-09-2010
-------------------
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :-
------------------------------
AJAYAN C.S, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRASEKARAN,
KIZHAKKE KUNNATHODI VEEDU, VILAYUR POST,
PATTAMBI (VIA), OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.RAVI.K. (PARIYARATH)
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE OF KERALA :-
--------------------------------------------
1. SURESH KUMAR, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN,
KOIKKATTIL VEEDU, THATHANAMPULLI POST,
KULUKKALLORR, OTTAPALAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-675 001.
2. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JESTIN MATHEW
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 12-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
jvt
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.823 of 2017
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of July 2017
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in Calendar Case No.450/2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi, for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent (complainant). The trial court as per the impugned judgment dated 25.9.2010 had convicted the petitioner and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant under Sec.357 (3) of the Cr.P.C. and in default thereof, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had preferred Crl.Appeal No.588/2010 before the appellate Sessions Court concerned (Court of Session, Palakkad). The appellate court as per the impugned appellate judgment dated 4.7.2011 had upheld the conviction and sentenced the petitioner to undergo Crl.R.P. No.823 of 2017 -: 2 :- imprisonment till rising of court and to pay compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- to the complainant and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. It is aggrieved by the said findings of both the courts below that the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition by taking recourse to the remedies available under Sec.397 read with Sec.401 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Heard Sri.Ravi K. Pariyarath, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (accused), Sri.T.N.Manoj, learned counsel appearing for R1 (complainant) and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R2 (State).
3. Learned advocates appearing for the accused and the complainant would submit that the parties have resolved their disputes to the best satisfaction of both sides and that the complainant has already received the cheque amount (Rs.3,00,000/-) from the accused and that the complainant has no further disputes against the accused in full and final settlement of all liabilities in respect of the dishonoured cheque in question and that this Court may dispose of the revision petition taking note of the above settlement. Further, learned Crl.R.P. No.823 of 2017 -: 3 :- counsel appearing on both sides submit that a joint compromise application has already been filed by the petitioner acknowledging the said settlement.
4. Accordingly, the following directions are issued :-
(1) The impugned conviction imposed on the petitioner for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in this case will stand confirmed.
(2) In supersession of the order passed by the courts below, it is ordered that the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (cheque amount). Since the accused had already paid the said amount fully to the complainant, such payments so made will be treated as those amounts to be paid as fine and then disbursed as compensation to the complainant in terms of Sec.357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Since the said amount has already been paid in full, there is no necessity for the trial court to take any further action for execution of the impugned sentence in this case. (3) The petitioner to produce a certified copy of this order before the trial court for information that no further action is required on the part of the trial court for execution of the impugned sentence.
Crl.R.P. No.823 of 2017 -: 4 :-
With these observations and directions, the revision petition stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Jvt/15.7.2017