High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2011-06-30Revision petition allowed; acquittal of the acc...

K. Abdul v. Yusuf and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1585 of 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K.Mohan(an)
Judgment Date: 2011-06-30
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is allowed; the judgment convicting the petitioner under Section 138 NI Act is set aside; the accused is acquitted under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. and is set at liberty. The offence is compounded under Section 147 NI Act with payment of Rs. 3000 deposited to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, in line with the Supreme Court guidelines (Damodar S. Prabhu).
Final Disposition: Revision petition allowed; acquittal of the accused; compounding of the offence permitted; the petitioner set at liberty; costs deposited as directed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K. Abdul, S/o. Kunjahammed

Respondents

Yusuf, S/o. Unnen Kutty
State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Aneesh Joseph

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. C.J.Ajitha for R1
• Public Prosecutor Sri. V. Tek Chand for R2

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, K. Abdul, was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sulthan Bathery (S.T.No.180/2008, dated 7.10.2008) and affirmed by the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.250/2008 (dated 26.2.2011). The underlying dispute is a cheque bounce case. In Crl.R.P. No. 1585 of 2011, the High Court of Kerala, represented by Justice V.K. Mohanan, entertained a petition to revise the conviction. On 30 June 2011, the Court admitted a separate Criminal M.A. (Crl.M.A.No.5620/2011) filed to compound the offence under section 138 NI Act. The parties stated that the dispute was amicably settled with mediation, and the complainant did not intend to prosecute further. The Court noted the compounding petition, which was signed by both parties and countersigned by their counsel, and relied on the apex court guideline in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (JT 2010(4) SC 457) to accept the compounding and the payment of costs fixed by the Court. Accordingly, the Court allowed the revision petition and acquitted the accused under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., setting him at liberty, while recording the composition of the offence and directing payment of Rs. 3000 deposited to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority. The outcome reflects a favorable settlement-based disposition in a criminal NI Act matter.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Compounding of offences under Cr.P.C. is permissible where parties amicably settle and the court is satisfied with the terms (Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends for compounding of the offence under Section 138 NI Act based on amicable settlement mediated between the parties. Relying on the Apex Court guidance in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. and the Court's discretion under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks acquittal in light of the settlement and payment of costs fixed by the Court. The submission emphasizes that the complainant does not intend to prosecute further, and the dispute has been resolved amicably.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents indicate that the matter has been amicably settled with the intervention of mediators and that the first respondent does not intend to prosecute. They support recording the composition and permit the compounding of the offence as per the Court's discretion, given the settlement and payment of costs; the Respondents do not oppose the revision petition insofar as it enables resolution through compounding.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.	JT 2010(4) SC 457	Positive	Court relies on Apex Court guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu to permit compounding of the offence in light of amicable settlement and related costs, justifying acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K. Abdul v. Yusuf and State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

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 THURSDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2011 / 9TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1585 of 2011 ------------------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN S.T.NO.180/2008 DTD.7.10.2008 & JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO.250/2008 DTD.26.2.2011) REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------- K.ABDU, S/O.KUNJAHAMMED, KUNDIL HOUSE, RAHMATH NAGAR, CHEERAL ROAD, SULTHAN BATHERY. BY ADV. SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH RESPONDENTS(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT --------------------------- 1. YUSUF, S/O.UNNEN KUTTY, AGED 59 YEARS, KALLINGAL HOUSE, CHELLANGODE, MUPPAINAD, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. BY ADV. SMT.C.J.AJITHA FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND FOR R2. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.1585 of 2011** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 30th 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 he is convicted and sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No.5620/ 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 contesting ## **Crl.R.P.No. 1585 of 2011** ## **-:2:-** 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 7.10.2008 in S.T.No. 180 of 2008 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Sulthan Bathery and the judgment dated 26.2.2011 in Crl.A.No. 250 of 2008 of the court of Sessions Judge, Wayanad, Kalpetta, and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against him in the above case and he is set at liberty. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** MBS/ ## **Crl.R.P.No. 1585 of 2011** ## **-:3:-** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl. M.A.No. 5620 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 1585 of 2011 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 30th 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 matter in dispute between the parties is amicably settled between the parties with the intervention of mediators. The first respondent/complainant does not intend to prosecute the matter 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 first respondent/complainant and ## **Crl.R.P.No. 1585 of 2011** ## **-:4:-** countersigned by their respective 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 an amount of `.3000/-, as per order dated 27.5.2011 so as to enable him to move this Court to compound the offence for which he is convicted and sentenced. The revision petitioner has paid a sum of `.3000/- to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.338 dated 23.6.2011 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 first ## **Crl.R.P.No. 1585 of 2011** ## **-:5:-** respondent and countersigned by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition is recorded. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** MBS/ **Crl.R.P.No. 1585 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. 1585 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. 1585 of 2011** ## **-:8:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ----------------------------------J U D G M E N T ## **Crl.R.P.No. 1585 of 2011** ## **-:9:-** DATED: -2- 2010 ## **Crl.R.P.No. 1585 of 2011** ## **-:10:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** ## **Crl.R.P.No. 1585 of 2011** ## **-:11:-** Dated:.. **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** ## **Crl.R.P.No. 1585 of 2011** ## **-:12:-** Dated:..