2004 (4) TMI 652 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act).
2. Compounding of the offence under Section 147 of the N.I. Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. after dismissal of a revision application.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Conviction and Sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act:
The petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.), Vadodara, for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act due to a dishonored cheque. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge. The accused argued that other partners responsible for the business were not included as co-accused, but the Court maintained that it was the complainant's choice to include them. The High Court found no illegality, irregularity, or infirmity in the orders of the trial and appellate courts.

2. Compounding of the Offence under Section 147 of the N.I. Act:
Both parties sought to compound the offence under Section 147 of the N.I. Act, which allows compounding of offences notwithstanding other laws. The accused negotiated a compromise, and an amount of Rs. 1,05,000 was paid to the complainant. The Court noted that Section 147 of the N.I. Act, with its non-obstante clause, permits compounding of the offence irrespective of the procedural constraints of the Cr.P.C. This provision prevails over the general procedural law, enabling the parties to settle the matter out of court.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. after Dismissal of a Revision Application:
The Court considered whether it could exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the conviction after a revision application was dismissed. The Court acknowledged that while normally petitions invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable after the dismissal of a revision application, special circumstances can justify such intervention. The Court cited precedents where extraordinary jurisdiction was exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and to honor the spirit of a compromise.

Conclusion:
The High Court accepted the compromise between the parties as genuine and quashed the conviction and sentence. The Court emphasized that the non-obstante clause in Section 147 of the N.I. Act allows for compounding of the offence at any stage, including post-revision. The accused was acquitted on account of the compounding of the offence, and the petitions were allowed with costs imposed on both petitioners.