IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 4088 of 2006(A)
1. K.T. SUDHAMANI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. K.K. JOSEPH, KALLUPURACKAL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :06/12/2006
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
………………………………………………………………………..
CRL.R.P. 4088 OF 2006
………………………………………………………………………..
Dated this the 6th December, 2006
O R D E R
The petitioner was found guilty under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for six months. The conviction and sentence was challenged by the
petitioner in appeal. The appeal was partly allowed and while confirming
the conviction, the sentence was modified and reduced to simple
imprisonment for three months.
2. Crl.M.A.No. 12596 of 2006 filed by the parties under section 147
of the Negotiable Instruments Act was allowed.
In the result, the Crl. Revision Petition is allowed. The conviction and
sentence imposed on the petitioner are set aside and the petitioner is
acquitted under section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
………………………………………………………………………..
CRL.M.A.NO. 12596 OF 2006 IN
CRL. R.P. 4088 OF 2006
………………………………………………………………………..
Dated this the 6th December, 2006
O R D E R
The petitioner/accused and the second respondent/ complainant
have filed this application jointly under section 147 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act seeking leave to compound the offence under section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act . In the application, it is stated that the
dispute is settled between the parties. The application is allowed.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
………………………………………………………………………..
CRL.R.P. 4088 OF 2006
………………………………………………………………………..
Dated this the 23rd November , 2006
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for
which the cheque is alleged to have been issued.
Admit. Issue notice to the second respondent by special
messenger. Public Prosecutor takes notice for the first respondent. Call
for the records.
Post the Crl. Revision Petition on 30.11.2006.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
………………………………………………………………………..
CRL.M.A. NO. 11744 OF 2006
IN CRL. R.P. 4088 OF 2006
………………………………………………………………………..
Dated this the 23rd November , 2006
O R D E R
Execution of sentence is suspended on condition that the petitioner
shall execute a bond for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only)
with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of
court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ambalappuzha and also
on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh only) before the trial court within a period of two months.
The question whether the conviction is to be suspended will be
decided after hearing the second respondent.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+Crl MC No. 3776 of 2006()
#1. CHACKO, S/O.MATHAI,
… Petitioner
2. SIVARAJAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN,
3. BENNY, S/O.VARKEY,
4. KESAVAN, S/O.NARAYANAN,
5. SASI, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,
6. MADHU, S/O.SOMAN,
7. SOMAN, S/O.KUMARAN,
8. SANTHOSH, S/O.NANDANAN,
9. RAJU, S/O.NARAYANAN,
10. SIVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN,
11. REJI, S/O.KOCHU VARKEY,
12. MONOY, S/O.KOCHU VARKEY,
13. SASI @ KUTTAI, S/O.KUNJAPPAN,
14. BINU, S/O.VARGHESE,
15. THAMPI, S/O.VARGHESE,
16. BIJU, S/O.VARGHESE,
17. SKARIA @ KUNJU, S/O.POULOSE,
18. MATHAI, S/O.SKARIYA,
19. MATHAI, S/O.ULAHANNAN,
20. SASI, S/O.KUNJAPPAN,
21. XAVIER, S/O.JOSEPH,
Vs
$1. STATE OF KERALA,
… Respondent
! For Petitioner :SRI. JOHN K. GEORGE
^ For Respondent : No Appearance
*Coram
The Hon’ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
% Dated :08/12/2006
: O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
————————————————-
CRL.M.C.NO. 3776 OF 2006
————————————————-
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2006
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused in a prosecution, inter
alia, under Sec.307 read with Sec.149 of the IPC. In that case,
the Investigating Officer – P.W.39 has been examined.
After such examination, the learned Public Prosecutor filed
an application to recall P.W.39 and the said application stands
allowed under Annexure-III order. The petitioners had also
filed Annxure-II petition – Crl.M.P.No.5043/06, to recall as
many as 17 witnesses for the purpose of further cross-
examination. The short grievance of the petitioners is that
though Annexure-III order has been passed, no orders have
been passed on their application.
2. I have no hesitation to agree with the learned counsel
for the petitioners that Annexure-II petition deserves to be
disposed of on merits. The learned Sessions Judge shall pass
appropriate orders on Annexure-II application at the earliest –
within a period of 10 days from the date on which a copy of
CRL.M.C.NO. 3776 OF 2006 -: 2 :-
this order is placed before the learned Sessions Judge.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that
examination of P.W.39, under Annexure-III, may be permitted to
take place only after the prayer to recall the prosecution
witnesses is considered and decided. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioners, if the witnesses were recalled
subsequent to the further examination of P.W.39, P.W.39 may
have to be further recalled again, if necessary, after cross-
examination of the witnesses already examined on the side of the
prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge must take this into
consideration and decide the timing for examination of P.W.39.
4. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is allowed in
part.
5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioners.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
/true copy/ P.S. To Judge