Skip to content


Santhosh T.S. Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantSanthosh T.S.
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
.....the 2nd respondent resolving the dispute. crl. r.p. no.2180 of 2013 -:2. :- 4. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, 2nd respondent and the learned public prosecutor. learned counsel on both sides requested to dispose of the revision in terms of the settlement.5. settlement reached between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is that the petitioner would pay rs.2,35,000/- (rupees two lakhs and thirty five thousand only) to the 2nd respondent on or before 31.01.2014. learned counsel on both sides submitted that the petitioner has paid and the 2nd respondent has received rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) on 05.02.2014. learned counsel for the petitioner requests for time for payment of the balance amount of rs.1,35,000/- (rupees one lakh and thirty five thousand.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY,THE7H DAY OF FEBRUARY201418TH MAGHA, 1935 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2180 OF2013() ------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT

IN CRL. APPEAL NO.37 OF2013 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), ERNAKULAM DATED1807.2013 JUDGMENT

IN C.C. NO.3975 OF2013 JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOCHI, DATED1912-2012 REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SANTHOSH T.S. S/O.T V SASIDHARAN, THIRUNILATH HOUSE, NETTOOR MARADU, KOCHI BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.MAJEED SRI.K.H.ASIF RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM2 SABASTIAN K J S/O.K.D.JOSPEH, KUTHUKATT HOUSE, (REETHA BHAVAN) P O ROAD, PALLURUTHY DESOM, KOCHI R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS CHAZHUKKARAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MIZVER BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI SREEJITH R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0702-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

==================================== Crl. R.P.No.2180 of 2013 ==================================== Dated this the 07th day of February, 2014 ORDER

Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the Act") and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- with a default sentence of imprisonment of one month, in C.C. No.3975 of 2011. There was a direction that the fine if realized would be paid to the 2nd respondent.

2. Petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No.37 of 2013 challenging that conviction and sentence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-1), Ernakulam confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence as fine of Rs.2,25,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment of six months. That judgment is under challenge in this revision.

3. Parties were referred to the mediation centre where they entered into a settlement which the Mediator has reported. The memorandum of agreement is signed by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent resolving the dispute. Crl. R.P. No.2180 of 2013 -:

2. :- 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel on both sides requested to dispose of the revision in terms of the settlement.

5. Settlement reached between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is that the petitioner would pay Rs.2,35,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and thirty five thousand only) to the 2nd respondent on or before 31.01.2014. Learned counsel on both sides submitted that the petitioner has paid and the 2nd respondent has received Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) on 05.02.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests for time for payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees One lakh and thirty five thousand only). Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has no objection in granting time till 28.02.2014.

6. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, conviction of the petitioner under Sec.138 of the Act does not call for interference. But the sentence could be modified in accordance with the settlement reached between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.

7. So far as cheque Nos.922043 and 902044 of the Uco Bank, Thrissur Branch given to the 2nd respondent by the Crl. R.P. No.2180 of 2013 -:

3. :- petitioner is concerned, the 2nd respondent has stated that the said cheques are misplaced, not traceable and that the 2nd respondent will not misuse or hand over the said cheques to anybody in the event of the same being traced out. That undertaking of the 2nd respondent is recorded. The revision petition is disposed of as under: (i) Conviction of the petitioner under Sec.138 of the Act would stand confirmed. (ii) Acknowledgment of receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) by the 2nd respondent as part payment pursuant to the settlement agreement is recorded. (iii) The petitioner shall pay the balance sum of Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees One lakh and thirty five thousand only) to the 2nd respondent on or before 28.02.2014. (iv) In case the petitioner does not pay the balance sum of Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees One lakh and thirty five thousand only) within the time aforesaid, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The said amount could also be realized from the petitioner as per the law. (v) It is made clear that it is sufficient if the petitioner makes the payment to the 2nd respondent through his counsel in Crl. R.P. No.2180 of 2013 -:

4. :- the trial court and he files a statement through counsel in the trial court on or before 01.03.2014 acknowledging receipt of the balance amount. (v) Warrant of arrest if any issued to the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 01.03.2014 or till the statement as aforesaid is filed, whichever is earlier. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //