SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J
MANOJ BABU K.G. – Appellant
Versus
P.R.MURALEEDARAN – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1058 OF 2013



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.R.S.KUMAR
For the Respondents: SRI. ALEX M. THOMBRA, SRI.BIJU C. ABRAHAM

The court allowed the parties to compound the matter under Section 138, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence.

Headnote:This revision petition impugns the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.18/2010 concerning an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court found the accused guilty and imposed a sentence of one month imprisonment and a Rs.35,000 compensation. The appellate court modified the sentence, reducing imprisonment to the rising of the court. The parties subsequently settled, leading to the acceptance of a compounding petition. The court ruled that nothing survives in the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence, and released the accused.

Result: The conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is hereby set aside and he is set at liberty.

Table of Content
1. judgment regarding section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties allowed to compound matter, leading to acquittal. (Para 4)

ORDER

This revision petition is preferred impugning the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad Hoc-I), Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No.18/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . The above appeal was preferred, challenging the judgment dated 08.12.2009 in S.T. No. 1736/2005 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry, whereby the accused was found guilty.

2. The trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a compensation of Rs.35,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

3. The appellate court, as per the impugned judgment, modified and reduced the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.35,000/- with a default clause.

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and has also filed a compounding petition dated 16.06.2025. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, nothing survives in this revision petition. The compounding petition is accepted and parties are allowed to compound the matter.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. The conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is hereby set aside and he is set at liberty.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top