9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to conviction and sentence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, maintainability of revision petition without surrender, interpretation of High Court Rules regarding surrender requirement, impact on personal liberty and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Maintainability of Revision Petition without Surrender: The Petitioner challenged the judgment convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition due to the Petitioner not surrendering before filing. The Petitioner's Counsel argued that the High Court Rules do not mandate surrender before filing a revision petition, distinguishing between "presentability" and "maintainability" of a petition. The Counsel contended that Rule 311 of the High Court Rules, requiring a surrender certificate, does not affect the petition's maintainability under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Counsel further argued that imposing a surrender requirement would violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Interpretation of High Court Rules and Impact on Personal Liberty: The Court analyzed Rules 308 and 311 of the High Court Rules, emphasizing that Rule 311(3) only requires a surrender certificate for a petition with a sentence of imprisonment. The Court clarified that the absence of this certificate affects the petition's presentability, not its maintainability under the law. It was highlighted that Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not necessitate surrender before filing a revision petition. The Court cautioned against an interpretation that would lead to anomalous situations or render the rules unconstitutional, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and due process of law under Article 21 of the Constitution. Compromise and Acquittal: The Court noted the presence of both parties, their identification by counsel, and a compromise agreement produced before the Court. Referring to the Supreme Court's view on Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which aims to ensure repayment rather than punishment, the Court observed that the amount in question had been paid and accepted by the complainant, leading to a compromise. Consequently, the Court quashed the previous judgments, acquitted the Petitioner of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, and allowed the petition. Conclusion: The High Court of Rajasthan, after considering the arguments on maintainability without surrender, interpreting the High Court Rules, and recognizing the compromise between the parties, acquitted the Petitioner of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, emphasizing the importance of ensuring due repayment over punitive measures.
|
