TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Kerala High Court Allows Compounding of Offence under Sec.138 NI Act</h1> <h3>MANIKANTAN NAIR, S/O. APPUKUTTAN PILLAI Versus THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK TAXI DRIVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM</h3> MANIKANTAN NAIR, S/O. APPUKUTTAN PILLAI Versus THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK TAXI DRIVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC ... Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act2. Appeal before the Sessions Court3. Compromise and compounding of the offenceAnalysis:Issue 1: Conviction under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments ActThe petitioner was accused under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in a case before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to imprisonment and a compensation amount. The petitioner then appealed to the Sessions Court, which upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition challenging these verdicts.Issue 2: Appeal before the Sessions CourtThe Sessions Court, specifically the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram, upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The petitioner, aggrieved by this decision, filed a revision petition seeking relief under Sec.397 r/w Sec.401 of the Cr.P.C.Issue 3: Compromise and compounding of the offenceDuring the proceedings, it was brought to the court's attention that a compromise had been reached between the parties involved. Both the revision petitioner-accused and the Secretary of the complainant Co-operative Society were present and confirmed the compromise. They filed a joint compromise petition for compounding the offence, stating that the entire dispute had been resolved, and the complainant had received the full amount in question. The court, after considering the joint compromise application, set aside the judgments of the lower courts and ordered the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to be compounded. The petitioner was acquitted of the offence, subject to payment of costs.In conclusion, the High Court of Kerala allowed the compounding of the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to the compromise reached between the parties, thereby acquitting the petitioner. The court also directed the petitioner to pay costs before the Kerala State Legal Services Authority.
TaxTMI 