Martine Joseph vs Joseph Joseph on 15 December, 2006

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 3966 of 2006(A)


1. MARTINE JOSEPH, MARKETING PARTNER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JOSEPH JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :15/12/2006

 O R D E R
                                    K. HEMA, J.

                     -----------------------------------

                      CRL. R.P NO. 3966 OF 2006

                     -----------------------------------

            Dated this the 15th day of December, 2006.


                                     O R D E R

Admit. First respondent enters appearance.

This revision petition is filed against the conviction and sentence

passed against the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment

for one year and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the

respondent-complainant and in default of which to undergo simple

imprisonment for four months. The conviction and sentence were

passed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. On a complaint filed by the first respondent-complainant

before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kottayam, the revision

petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for one year and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to

the complainant and in default of payment of which to undergo simple

imprisonment for four months. The said conviction and sentence were

confirmed in the appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam.

Challenging the said conviction and sentence this revision petition is

filed.

3. At the time of hearing, both sides submitted that the matter

is settled amicably out of court and the entire amount is paid to the

CRL. R.P. 3966/2006 2

satisfaction of the complainant. They have also filed a petition as

Crl. M.A. No. 12892 of 2006 to compound the offence. On hearing

both sides, I am satisfied that permission can be granted to compound

the offence and I do so.

Hence, the revision petitioner is acquitted for offence under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as compounded. He is

set at liberty forthwith.

Crl. M.A. 12892/2006 and revision petition are allowed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE

smp