E.V. Elias v. V.K. Ansar and State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2013-03-01
Court Decision / Holding: Permission to compound the offences under Section 147 NI Act was granted and the composition was recorded in each of the cited cases. The court noted the signed compounding petitions by the petitioner and the complainants, counter-signed by their counsel, and the payment of costs to the Kerala State Legal Service Authority, and disposed of the revisions by recording the settlement.
Final Disposition: Compounding of the offences allowed; composition recorded in all three cases; revisions disposed of on the basis of the compounding orders.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

E.V. Elias

Respondents

V.K. Ansar
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Sunilkumar

Counsels for Respondents

• N.K. Somasekharan Pillai
• Seena Ramachandran (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court order deals with three criminal revision petitions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed by the petitioner E.V. Elias challenging convictions and sentences in separate NI Act offences. The first conviction arose in CC No. 118/2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perumbavoor, with the appellate chain culminating in a concurrent conviction and a modified sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court, and compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The other two matters pertain to S.T. Nos. 41/2009 (Hosdurg) and 125/07 (Pathanamthitta), where the trial courts also convicted under Section 138 NI Act and the Sessions Court upheld similar sentences. In all three petitions, the revisionists sought to compound the offences under Section 147 NI Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C. on settlement with the complainants. The petitions disclose that the parties have settled and the complainants have no grievance; the petitioner paid costs to the Kerala State Legal Service Authority in compliance with a Supreme Court decision cited as Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. The Court, after verifying the compounding petitions and signatures of both sides, granted permission to compound and recorded the composition, thereby disposing of the revisions by consent.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ActSection 357(3) Cr.P.C.Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments ActSection 320 Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submitted compounding petitions under Section 147 NI Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C., stating that the parties have settled the disputes and the complainants have no grievance left. They contended that the respondent-complainant has accepted the settlement and the petitioner has paid the court-ordered costs to the Kerala State Legal Service Authority in line with the Supreme Court's Damodar S. Prabhu decision, thereby enabling the court to permit compounding and record the composition. The petitions were supported by counsel and counter-signed by parties and their advocates.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent's counsel stated that the averments in the compounding petitions are true and correct, that the first respondent received the settlement amount in full, and that there was no coercion or improper pressure. The respondents supported the request for compounding on the terms stated and indicated agreement to the recording of composition if the court found the terms satisfactory.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.	JT 2010(4) SC 457	Positive	The court referred to this Supreme Court decision to justify payment of costs to the Kerala State Legal Service Authority and compliance with the decision as a basis for allowing compounding.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2013/10TH PHALGUNA 1934 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 402 of 2013 () ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA.277/2011 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM DATED 28-10-2011 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC.118/2009 of J.M.F.C. - II, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 18-04-2011 ## REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------- E.V.ELIAS, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.VARGHESE PUTHUSSERY VADUVILE VEEDU (KAKKOTTU CHALIL KIZHAKKE PUTHEN PURAYIL) KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANNOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR ## RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE : ------------------------------------------------------ ## 1. V.K.ANSAR VALAPPIL THACHAYIL HOUSE, CHELAKKULAM KARA PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE-683542. ## 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682635. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SOMASEKHARAN PILLAI R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMACHANDRAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: uj. ## K. HARILAL,J **.** **======================** Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 **======================** Dated this the 1[st] day of March, 2013 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner herein is the Revision Petitioner in the above Criminal Revision Petition. The above Criminal Revision Petition was filed challenging the conviction entered and sentence imposed on the petitioner in C.C.No.118/2009 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perumbavoor. In appeal, the conviction was confirmed and the sentence was modified to imprisonment till rising of the court by the Addl. Sessions Court (AdhocI) , Ernakulam. 2. The Revision Petitioner was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on a complaint filed by the 1[st] respondent. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the Revision Petitioner guilty of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted thereunder. He Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 2 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part, confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence of imprisonment to imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3)Cr.P.C. In default sentence was reduced to two months. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of conviction entered and sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner, the above Criminal Revision Petition was filed on various grounds. 3. Now the Revision Petitioner along with the 1st respondent filed Crl.M.Application No.1522/2013 under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C. to compound the offence for which conviction and sentence imposed. In the petition, it is specifically stated that the parties have settled the matter between them and now 1[st] respondent does not have any Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 3 grievance or claim against the Revision petitioner and he is agreeable to compound the offence accepting this compounding petition. It is also stated that the Revision Petitioner has paid the cost as fixed by this Court to Kerala State Legal Service Authority in compliance with the decision reported in **Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (JT 2010(4) SC 457)** and produced the receipt along with the memo. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent submits that the averments stated in the petition are true and correct and the 1[st] respondent received the amount in full. As I am satisfied with the terms and averments contained in the compounding petition, which is signed by the Revision Petitioner as well as the 1[st] respondent and counter signed by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and composition is recorded. **K. HARILAL, JUDGE** stu //True copy// P.A to judge. Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 4 Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 5 K. HARILAL,J **. ======================** Crl.M.Appl. No. 520 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 149 of 2013 **======================** Dated this the 5[th] day of February, 2013 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner herein is the Revision Petitioner in the above criminal revision petition. The above Criminal Revision Petition was filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed in S.T.No.41/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg and confirmed by the Sessions Court, Kasaragod. 2. The Revision Petitioner was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He pleaded not guilty. After trial, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay Rs. 60,000/- to the Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 6 complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The learned Sessions Judge also confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings imposing conviction and sentence on the petitioner, the above Criminal Revision Petition was filed on various grounds. 3. Now the petitioner along with the 1st respondent filed a petition under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to compound the offence for which conviction and sentence imposed. In the petition, it is specifically stated that, the 1[st] respondent has compounded the matter fully in accordance with his will and no compulsion or coercion from any corner for that. He received the claim amount to his satisfaction. It is also stated that the petitioner has paid the cost as fixed by this Court in compliance with the decision reported in **Damodar** **S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (JT 2010(4) SC 457)** and produced the receipt along with the memo. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent submits that the averments Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 7 stated in the petition are true and correct and the 1[st] respondent received the amount in full. As I am satisfied with the terms and averments contained in the compounding petition, which is signed by the Revision Petitioner as well as the 1[st] respondent and counter signed by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and composition is recorded. ## **K. HARILAL, JUDGE** ks. Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 8 ## K. HARILAL,J **.** **======================** Crl.M.Appl. No. 545 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 156 of 2013 **======================** Dated this the 7[th] day of February, 2013 **O R D E R** Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 9 The petitioner herein is the Revision Petitioner in the above criminal revision petition. The above Criminal Revision Petition was filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed in S.T.No.125/07 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta and confirmed by the District and Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta. 2. The petitioner was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He pleaded not guilty. After trial, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The complainant was allowed to realise the above fine amount as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sessions Judge also confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings imposing conviction and sentence on the petitioner, the above Criminal Revision Petition was filed on various Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 10 grounds. 3. Now the petitioner along with the 2[nd] respondent filed a petition under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to compound the offence for which conviction and sentence imposed. In the petition, it is specifically stated that, the 2[nd] respondent has compounded the matter fully in accordance with his will and no compulsion or coercion from any corner for that. He received the claim amount to his satisfaction. It is also stated that the petitioner has paid the cost as fixed by this Court in compliance with the decision reported in **Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (JT 2010(4) SC 457)** and produced the receipt along with the memo. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent submits that the averments stated in the petition are true and correct and the 2[nd] respondent received the amount in full. As I am satisfied with the terms and averments contained in the compounding petition, which is signed by the Revision Petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent and Crl.M.Appl. No. 1522 of 2013 in Crl.R.P. No. 402 of 2013 11 counter signed by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and composition is recorded. **K. HARILAL, JUDGE** stu