IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1690 of 2008()
1. VARKEY JOB, S/O.VARKEY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHERIYAN MATHEW, MUTTASSERIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.JOMY GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.BIJOY KURUVILLA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :28/05/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
=====================
Crl.R.P. No.1690 of 2008
=====================
Dated this the 28th day of April, 2008
ORDER
The accused in C.C. No.858/2002 on the file of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla for an offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenges
the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him
concurrently by the courts below.
2. Pending this revision, the parties have settled the
matter. Crl.M.A.No.5093 of 2008 has been filed under Section
147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 seeking permission
to record the composition entered into between the revision
petitioner and the complainant. The said petition has been
signed by both the revision petitioner as well as the complainant
and their respective counsels. In the light of this development,
the aforementioned composition is recorded and it will have the
effect of an acquittal of the revision petitioner within the
meaning of Sec. 320 (8) Cr.P.C.
This Crl. R.P. is disposed of as above.
V. RAMKUMAR,JUDGE.
css/
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CRL.R.P. No. of 2008
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Dated this the 28th day of May 2008
O R D E R
The accused in C.C. / ST. No………………on the file of the
J.F.C.M, for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenges the conviction
entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the
courts below.
2. Pending this revision, the parties have settled the
matter. Crl.M.A.No. of 2007 has been filed under Section
147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 seeking permission
to record the composition entered into between the revision
petitioner and the complainant. The said petition has been
signed by both the revision petitioner as well as the complainant
and their respective counsels. In the light of this development,
the aforementioned composition is recorded and it will have the
effect of an acquittal of the revision petitioner within the
meaning of Sec. 320 (8) Cr.P.C. Money, if any, deposited by the
revision petitioner pursuant to the orders, if any, passed by the
lower appellate court shall be refunded to the revision
petitioner/accused.
This Crl. R.P. is disposed of as above.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
css/