High Court Kerala High Court

Stanly K.Paulose vs Biju Mattathil on 12 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Stanly K.Paulose vs Biju Mattathil on 12 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3640 of 2008()


1. STANLY K.PAULOSE, S/O.PAULOSE, AGED 39,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. BIJU MATTATHIL, AGED 29 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :12/11/2008

 O R D E R
                 M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                   ------------------------------------------
                    CRL.R.P. NO. 3640 OF 2008
                   ------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008


                               O R D E R

Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent

the complainant in S.T.217 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Thamarassery. Petitioner was convicted and

sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before

Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Crl.Appeal 758 of 2007. The

appeal was filed with a petition to condone the delay. Though

petitioner was directed to deposit an amount to condone the

delay, it was not deposited and consequently the application was

dismissed. Consequently the appeal was also dismissed.

Revision is filed challenging the same. Along with the revision,

revision petitioner produced a receipt issued by the first

respondent for payment of the amount covered by the

dishonoured cheque.

2. Crl.M.A.11088 of 2008 is filed to receive the

compromise petition entered into by first respondent and

revision petitioner stating that they have settled the dispute and

CRRP3640/08 2

first respondent has received the entire amount due under the

cheque and therefore first respondent has no objection for

allowing the revision. Learned counsel appearing for first

respondent also submitted that the matter has been settled and

first respondent has compounded the offence with the revision

petitioner. Hence the permission is granted to compound the

offence. Offence is compounded.

M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE

Okb/-