Emily.T.C. v. The State of Kerala and Francis S/o Sanjo John

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2011-06-22
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is allowed; setting aside the judgments of conviction and sentence; acquitting the petitioner of all charges; directing the compounding of the offence under Section 138 NI Act with 10% deposit; the petitioner is set at liberty. The compounding was recorded in the accompanying M.A. and the matter is closed.
Final Disposition: Revision petition allowed; acquittal of the accused; matter compounded; accused set at liberty.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Emily.T.C., C/O. Samson, Sweety Home (Puthenpurakal), Mararikulam North Panchayath, Chetty.P.O., Arthunkal, Cherthala

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Francis, S/O Sanjo John, Veliyil House, Pollathai P.O., S.L.Puram, Alappuzha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. B. Pramod

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. K.S. Gopi for R-2
• Smt. Rekha C. Nayar, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. arising from a conviction for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner Emily T.C. was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alappuzha, in CC No. 817 of 2006, and the conviction was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track II), Alappuzha, in Crl.A. No. 331 of 2009. The trial court and the appellate court found that a cheque issued by the petitioner for discharge of a debt did not get honored, resulting in liability under the NI Act. During pendency of the revision, the parties entered into a compromise; the petition for compounding under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed; the court noted that the dispute between the parties stood settled and both did not wish to pursue the litigation further. The High Court considered the compounding petition in light of the Supreme Court's guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., JT 2010(4) SC 457, and recorded the composition after observing that the petitioner paid 10% of the cheque amount to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority. Relying on this, the court allowed the revision petition and acquitted the petitioner under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., setting aside the earlier judgments. The decision reflects a strong preference for settlement in NI Act offences, where valid compounding is permissible. The order directs that the compounding be recorded and that the petitioner be released; the overall effect is to quash criminal liability for the cheque bounce offence upon compounding.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act; Court's discretionary power under Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and desire to compound the offence under Section 138 NI Act; references to Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. and the 10% deposit scheme; seeks acquittal on the basis of compounding and non-prosecution.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents join in the settlement and consent to compounding; counsel countersigned the compounding petition; no adverse stance is indicated; aim is to resolve the matter through compounding consistent with Supreme Court guidance.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.	JT 2010(4) SC 457	Positive	Cited as the guiding Supreme Court principle allowing compounding of offences under NI Act and the associated deposit terms.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1566 of 2011() -----------------------------CRA.331/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.817/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- EMILY.T.C,C/O.SAMSON,SWEETY HOME (PUTHENPURAKAL),MARARIKULAM NORTH PANCHAYATH, CHETTY.P.O,ARTHUNKAL,CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. FRANCIS,S/O.SANJOHN,VELIYIL HOUSE, POLLATHAI.P.O,S.L.PURAM,ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.K.S.GOPI FOR R-2 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.C.NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 1566 of 2011** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 22[nd] day of June, 2011 ## **ORDER** The revision petitioner is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act and the trial court as well as the lower appellate court found that the accused is guilty and accordingly, she is convicted and sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No. 5531/2011, this Court allowed the parties to compound the offence and accordingly, the composition of the said offence is recorded. The revision petitioner has also complied with the condition of paying cost, as fixed by this Court, on the basis of the guideline issued by the Apex Court in the decision reported in **Damodar.S.Prabhu** v. **Sayed Babalal.H.** [JT 2010(4) SC 457]. In the light of the composition of the offence between the ## **Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011** ## **-:2:-** contesting parties, I am of the view that this Crl. R.P can be allowed, acquitting the accused in terms of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 2.7.2009 in C.C.No.817 of 2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha and the judgment dated 26.5.2010 in Crl.A.No.331 of 2009 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track-II), Alappuzha and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against her in the above case and she is set at liberty. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** MBS/ ## **Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011** ## **-:3:-** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl. M.A.No. 5531 of 2011 in Crl.M.A.No.1385 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 1566 of 2011** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 22[nd] day of June, 2011. ## **ORDER** This is a petition filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The dispute is the subject matter of the Crl.R.P. In the petition, it is stated that the transaction between the revision petitioner and the second respondent stands settled and both of them do not want to pursue the litigation any further. 2. I have gone through the compounding petition and I am satisfied with the terms and conditions incorporated therein and the petition is signed by both the revision petitioner and the second respondent/ complainant and countersigned by their respective ## **Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011** ## **-:4:-** counsel. Considering the particular facts and circumstances involved in the case, especially, in the light of the discretion granted to this Court by the Apex Court in the decision reported in **Damodar.S.Prabhu** v. **Sayed Babalal.H.** [JT 2010(4) SC 457], the revision petitioner was permitted to file the compounding petition depositing 10% of the cheque amount, as per order dated 21.6.2011 so as to enable her to move this Court to compound the offence for which she is convicted and sentenced. The revision petitioner has paid a sum of `.5000/being 10% of the cheque amount to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.332 dated 20.6.2011 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. As I am satisfied with the terms and the averments contained in the compounding petition, which is signed by the revision petitioner as well as the second respondent and countersigned by their ## **Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011** ## **-:5:-** respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition is recorded. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** MBS/ **Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011** **-:6:-** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **--------------------------------------------Crl.M.A.No.7087 of 2010 in Unnumbered Crl.R.P.No. of 2010** ## **--------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 2010** ## **O R D E R** This is an application to condone the delay of 1735 days occurred in filing the Crl.R.P. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman and after the impugned judgment, the matter has been settled out of court and a compounding petition has also been filed along with the revision petition and there is no contention on merit. 3. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, especially when the contesting parties settled the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to settle the matter and to redress his grievance. ## **Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011** ## **-:7:-** In the result, the delay of 1735 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition is condoned and the Registry is directed to number the Crl.R.P. **V.K.Mohanan, Judge.** MBS/ ## **Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011** ## **-:8:-** **V.K.MOHANAN,** ## **J.** -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ----------------------------------- J U D G M E N T ## **Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011** ## **-:9:-** DATED: -2- 2010 ## **Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011** ## **-:10:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** Dated:.. **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . ## **Crl.R.P.No.1566 of 2011** ## **-:11:-** O.P.No. ## **JUDGMENT** Dated:..