V.M. Bapputty Vs V.U. Chacko

High Court Of Kerala 3 Feb 2014 Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 99 of 2014 (2014) 02 KL CK 0191
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 99 of 2014

Hon'ble Bench

M.L. Joseph Francis, J

Advocates

Aginov Mathappan, Advocate for the Appellant; Joju Kynady, Advocate for R1 and Smt. P. Maya, Public Prosecutor for R2, Advocate for the Respondent

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 320(8)#Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) — Section 138

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

M.L. Joseph Francis, J.@mdashThis Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No.943 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate - I, Muvattupuzha. The cheque amount was Rs. 60,000/-. The trial court convicted the accused u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act (for short, ''the N.I. Act'') and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 60,000/-, in default to undergo

simple imprisonment for three months more. In case the fine amount is realised, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was ordered to be paid to the

complainant as compensation. In appeal, the conviction was confirmed and the imprisonment was reduced to simple imprisonment for one month

and Rs. 50,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Criminal

Revision Petition.

2. During the pendency of this Criminal Revision Petition, the revision petitioner and the first respondent complainant filed Crl.M.A.No.345 of

2014 stating that they have settled the matter and that permission may be granted to compound the offence. The revision petitioner has deposited

Rs. 2,500/- as costs to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, in compliance with the direction in the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu

Vs. Sayed Babalal H., . Since the matter is amicably settled between the parties, Crl.M.A.No.345 of 2014 is allowed and permission is granted to

the parties to compound the offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act in C.C.No.943 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial

First Class Magistrate - I, Muvattupuzha is compounded and the conviction and sentence of the accused u/s 138 of the N.I. Act is set aside and

he is acquitted u/s 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Rejects NALSA Appeal Filed Sans Convict Consent
Oct
30
2025

Story

Supreme Court Rejects NALSA Appeal Filed Sans Convict Consent
Read More
Supreme Court Raps Insurers for Technical Appeals in Claims
Oct
30
2025

Story

Supreme Court Raps Insurers for Technical Appeals in Claims
Read More