IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 774 of 2001()
1. P.M.NAZAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.A.SALEEM
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.VARGHESE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :15/10/2009
O R D E R
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No.774 OF 2001
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.235/1999 of
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Kochi and appellant in
Crl.Appeal No. 611/2000 of Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The revision
petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the
complainant. On appeal, his conviction under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act was confirmed, but sentence was modified
to the effect that he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
fifteen days and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/-, in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Out of the
compensation amount, Rs. 1,55,000/- was ordered to be paid to the
complainant as compensation as provided under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
Now the accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction
and sentence.
Crl.R.P.No.774/01 Page numbers
2. The case of the revision first respondent/complainant as
testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the trial
court was that the accused borrowed Rs. 1,50,000/- from the
complainant agreeing to repay the said amount with 12% interest on
February 1, 1998 and to discharge that liability, on the same day, he
issued the cheque – Ext.P1 drawn on the Kochi branch of Federal Bank
Ltd which when presented for collection was returned dishonoured for
want of sufficiency of funds in the account of the accused in the bank
and that inspite of the notice – Ext.P5 dated 15-12-1998, the accused
did not repay the amount which is an offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The learned Magistrate on receipt of the complaint recorded
the sworn statement of the complainant PW1 and took cognizance of
the case. The accused/revision petitioner on appearance before the trial
court pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. PW 1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P9
were marked on the side of the complainant before the trial court.
When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the
Crl.R.P.No.774/01 Page numbers
entire transaction. No defence evidence was adduced.
4. The learned Magistrate on an appreciation of the evidence
found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted him
thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid. The lower appellate court
confirmed his conviction and modified the sentence as aforesaid. The
accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction and
sentence.
5. When the revision petition came up for hearing today,
counsel for the petitioner and first respondent submitted that the matter
has been settled. They filed a compounding petition under Section 147
of Negotiable Instruments Act which was allowed by me. As the
offence has been compounded, conviction and sentence of the revision
petitioner by the trial court in S.T.No.235/99 which is confirmed in
appeal in Crl.Appeal No.611/2000 have to be set aside. Revision
petitioner/accused has to be acquitted of the charges against him.
In the result, revision petition is allowed as compounded. The
conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner by trial court under
Crl.R.P.No.774/01 Page numbers
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which is confirmed in
appeal is set aside and the accused is acquitted under Section 320 of
Cr.P.C. . His bail bonds are cancelled.
P.Q.BARKATH ALI
JUDGE
sv.
Crl.R.P.No.774/01 Page numbers