High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-01-30Acquittal of the accused; judgments set aside; ...

P.P. Joseph @ Johnson Punathil v Balakrishnans Balakrishnan? and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1218 of 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2013-01-30
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is allowed. The judgments in the lower courts are set aside, and the accused is acquitted under Section 320(8) CrPC on the basis of the recorded composition under Section 138 NI Act; the petitioner is set at liberty.
Final Disposition: Acquittal of the accused; judgments set aside; accused released; compounding recorded under Section 320(8) CrPC.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.P. Joseph @ Johnson Punathil

Respondents

Balakrishnan
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Babu Karukapadath
• Smt. M.A. Vaheeda Babu
• Sri. Jagan George
• Sri. P.G. Pramod
• Sri. Umesh N. Pai

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. R. Bindu
• Prasanth M.P
• Sri. K.K. Rajeev (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal revision petition under Sections 397/401 CrPC challenging a conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The revision petitioner, P.P. Joseph alias Johnson Punathil, was convicted by the trial court and affirmed by the Sessions Court for drawing a cheque dishonoured in favour of the complainant. The case traversed through the magistrate, the II-tier appellate proceedings, and eventually reached this High Court in 2011. On 30 January 2013, the court dealt with two linked paths: (i) the revision petition challenging the conviction, and (ii) a sequence of applications aiming to compound the offence under Section 138 NI Act. A separate order in Crl.M.A. No. 687/2013 recorded the parties’ consent to compound the offence, with Rs.12,500 deposited in KELSA in compliance with this Court’s directions, following the apex court guidance in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. The court held that the composition of the offence under Section 138 NI Act, in light of the settlement, warrants acquittal under Section 320(8) CrPC, and accordingly allowed the revision petition, setting aside the lower judgments and acquitting the accused, who was then directed to be released. The judgment underscores judicial encouragement of out-of-court settlements in appropriate NI Act matters while ensuring procedural safeguards and compliance with statutory directives.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Section 320(8) of the CrPCSection 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been settled out of court and the statutory conditions for compounding under Section 320(8) CrPC are satisfied. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., they contend that the court may permit compounding and record the composition, acquitting the accused. The petitioner has already deposited Rs.12,500 in KELSA as directed by this Court and thus fulfills the financial requirement. The revision petition seeks to set aside the conviction and sentence in light of the settled position and to discharge the accused. Considering the public interest, absence of ongoing injury, and compliance with statutory guidelines, they pray for allowing the compounding and recording of composition, resulting in acquittal.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the out-of-court settlement and support facilitating the settlement by recording the composition in accordance with the Supreme Court guidelines. They contend that such settlements are desirable to alleviate protracted litigation while safeguarding the complainant’s rights. They confirm no objection to the court’s process of recording compounding, provided that the statutory safeguards and the Damodar S Prabhu framework are satisfied, including the required financial deposit. They also emphasize the importance of ensuring proper compliance before granting acquittal.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.	JT 2010(4) SC 457	Positive	The Apex Court's guideline on compounding under NI Act when there is a settled out-of-court dispute is invoked to permit the composition and resulting acquittal.

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.P. Joseph @ Johnson Punathil v Balakrishnans Balakrishnan? 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/10TH MAGHA 1934 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1218 of 2011 ---------------------------[AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA.675/2009 of COURT OF III ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, KOZHIKODE DATED 31.12.2010 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC.489/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYOLI DATED 29.08.2009] REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- P.P.JOSEPH @ JOHNSON PUNATHIL, S/O.LATE PAILI,AGED 47 YEARS EDAMPADAM P.O. VARAPUZHA. BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.P.G.PRAMOD SRI.UMESH.N.PAI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------ 1. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.POKKINAN, ASARINTEMEETHAL (H),KARUVANCHERI AMSOM KUNNATHUKARA DESOM, PIN 673 523. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) BY ADV. SRI.PRASANTH M.P R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 1218 of 2011** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 30[th] day of January , 2013 ## **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. It is the above conviction and sentence challenged in this Criminal Revision Petition. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No. 687/2013, 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 parties, I am of the view that this Crl. R.P can **Crl.R.P.No. 1218 of 2011** ## **-:2:-** be allowed, acquitting the accused in terms of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 29.8.2009 in C.C.No. 489 of 2008 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli and the judgment dated 31.12.2010 in Crl.A.No. 675 of 2009 of the court of III Additional Sessions Judge, the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode 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. 1218 of 2011** ## **-:3:-** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl. M.A.No. 687 of 2013 in Crl.R.P.No. 1218 of 2011 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 30[th] day of January, 2013 ## **ORDER** This is a petition filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') with a prayer to permit the petitioner and the first respondent to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and to record the composition of the offence. The petitioner herein is the revision petitioner and he challenges his conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. As suggested during the hearing of the revision petition, now the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents submitted that the matter has been settled out of court and accordingly, the present petition is filed. As the matter is settled out of court, this Court need not stand in the way of settling the dispute, rather it is the duty of **Crl.R.P.No. 1218 of 2011** ## **-:4:-** the court to promote such settlement. I have verified the petitions and perused the same. The petition is signed by the petitioner/accused and the Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent/complainant and countersigned by the respective counsel. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 16.1.2013, the petitioner has already deposited a sum of `12,500/- in the KELSA in terms of the decision of the Apex Court reported in **Damodar.S.Prabhu** v. **Sayed Babalal.H.** [JT 2010(4) SC 457]. If that be so, particularly when the petitioner has deposited the amount, in the light of the above decision, according to me, the signatories to this petition can be permitted to compound the offence and the composition of the offence for which the revision petitioner stands convicted and sentenced can be recorded. In the result, this petition is allowed permitting and recording the composition of the offence under Section 138 of ## **Crl.R.P.No. 1218 of 2011** ## **-:5:-** the N.I.Act for which the petitioner stands convicted and sentenced and accordingly, the composition of the said offence is recorded. MBS/ **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** **-:6:-** ## **Crl.R.P.No. 1218 of 2011** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **--------------------------------------------Crl.M.A.No.686 of 2013 in Crl.R.P.No. 1218 of 2011 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of January, 2013** ## **O R D E R** This is an application filed with a prayer to receive the Power of Attorney and to permit the Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent/complainant to compound the offence for and on behalf of the petitioner, who is the first respondent in the above revision petition and the complainant in the trial court. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 3. The above petition is necessitated, since during the hearing of the revision petition both the parties expressed their desire to compound the offence for which the revision petitioner stands convicted and sentenced. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and as I am satisfied with the prayer of the petitioner, it is only just and proper to allow this ## **Crl.R.P.No. 1218 of 2011** ## **-:7:-** petition. Accordingly, the Power of Attorney produced is accepted and the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence with the revision petitioner/accused for and on behalf of the respondent/complainant. **V.K.Mohanan, Judge.** MBS/ ## **Crl.R.P.No. 1218 of 2011** ## **-:8:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ----------------------------------- - J U D G M E N T ## **Crl.R.P.No. 1218 of 2011** ## **-:9:-** DATED: -2-2010 ## **Crl.R.P.No. 1218 of 2011** ## **-:10:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** Dated:.. ## **Crl.R.P.No. 1218 of 2011** ## **-:11:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** Dated:..