High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeRevision petition allowed; acquittal of the acc...

P. J. Krishnakumar v. S. Santhosh and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 586 of 2011
Neutral Citation::null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date
2011-02-24
Court Decision / Holding
Crl.R.P. No. 586 of 2011 is allowed; the judgment dated 17.11.2005 in S.T.C. No.1163 of 2004 and the judgment dated 11.1.2008 in Crl.A. No. 88 of 2006 are set aside; the revision petition is allowed and the revision petitioner is acquitted of all charges and set at liberty. The compounding of the offence under Section 138 NI Act is recorded as per the terms of the compounding petition and the Rs.5000 deposited to Kerala State Legal Services Authority.
Final Disposition
Revision petition allowed; acquittal of the accused; judgments set aside; compounding recorded; accused released.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • P. J. Krishnakumar, S/o. Janardhanan, Rajeswary Jewellery Works, Pudusssery, Palakkad District

Respondents

  • S. Santhosh, S/o Late Sivarman, Sreeram Nivas, Lalbahadour Street, Vadakkanthara, Palakkad; now residing at Sreeram Nivas, Muthantara, Palakkad
  • State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri Rajesh Sivaramankutty
  • • Smt. A Premakumari

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. A Premakumari
  • • Public Prosecutor Smt. Rekha C. Nayyar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala matter concerns a Criminal Revision Petition filed by P. J. Krishnakumar challenging his conviction for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad, and the conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court on appeal. On 24 February 2011, the High Court allowed the revision petition, acquitting the petitioner in terms of Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., following a separate compounding petition under Section 147 NI Act. The parties had settled the dispute and the complainant had received the full amount covered by the cheque. The compounding petition was signed by the accused and the complainant and countersigned by their counsel. The court recorded the composition of the offence, noting that the parties had complied with the conditions and paid costs as fixed by the court, in line with the Supreme Court guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. The High Court, relying on this guideline, permitted the compounding and proceeded to acquit the petitioner, setting aside the earlier judgments and releasing him. The decision underscores the discretionary power of courts to permit compounding in NI Act offences where a genuine settlement exists, balancing finality of disputes with the interests of justice.

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

:null

Contentions of Respondents

:null

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H.JT 2010(4) SC 457PositiveReliance on Supreme Court guidelines to permit compounding of the offence under NI Act and to require payment of costs; used as basis for compounding.

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 P. J. Krishnakumar v. S. Santhosh 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 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 586 of 2011()** **--------------------------------------** **CRA.88/2006 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.1163/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD ....................** ## **REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED** **------------------------------------------------------------------** **P.J.KRISHNAKUMAR,S/O.JANARDHANAN, RAJESWARY JEWELLERY WORKS, PUDUSSERY,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SMT.A.PREMAKUMARI** ## **RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT & STATE** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. S.SANTHOSH,S/O.LATE SIVARAMAN, SREERAM NIVAS, LALBAHADOOR STREET, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD NOW RESIDING AT SREERAM NIVAS, MUTHANTHARA,PALAKKAD.** **2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **R1 BY ADV. SMT.A.PREMAKUMARI** **R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAYAR** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 586 of 2011** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 24[th] day of February, 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. 1568/2009, 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.586 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 17.11.2005 in S.T.C.No.1163 of 2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad and the judgment dated 11.1.2008 in Crl.A.No.88 of 2006 of the court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad Division 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.586 of 2011** ## **-:3:-** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl. M.A.No. 1568 of 2009 in Crl.R.P.No. 586 of 2009** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 24[th] day of February, 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 during the pendency of the cases, the petitioner/accused and first respondent/complainant have settled the dispute and the first respondent has received the entire amount covered by the cheque in dispute. The first respondent 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 ## **Crl.R.P.No.586 of 2011** ## **-:4:-** incorporated therein and the petition is signed by both the revision petitioner and the first respondent/ complainant and 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 Rs.5000/-, as per order dated 10.2.2011 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 Rs.5000/- to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.229 dated 17.2.2011 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. As I am satisfied with the terms and the averments contained in the ## **Crl.R.P.No.586 of 2011** ## **-:5:-** compounding petition, which is signed by the revision petitioner as well as the first 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.586 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.586 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.586 of 2011** ## **-:8:-** **V.K.MOHANAN,** ## **J.** -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ----------------------------------- J U D G M E N T ## **Crl.R.P.No.586 of 2011** ## **-:9:-** DATED: -2- 2010 ## **Crl.R.P.No.586 of 2011** ## **-:10:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** Dated:.. **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . ## **Crl.R.P.No.586 of 2011** ## **-:11:-** O.P.No. ## **JUDGMENT** Dated:..