9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Acceptance of composition of an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act after conviction and sentence become final. 2. Determination of the appropriate court to accept such composition. 3. Invocation of Constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to accept composition and relieve the accused from imprisonment. Detailed Analysis: 1. Acceptance of Composition Post-Conviction: The primary issue addressed is whether an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) can be compounded after the conviction and sentence have become final. The court acknowledges that Section 320 Cr.P.C., which deals with the compounding of offences, does not specifically apply to offences under the N.I. Act. However, Section 147 of the N.I. Act, introduced by the 2002 amendment, explicitly states that offences under the N.I. Act are compoundable. The court interprets the non-obstante clause in Section 147 to mean that despite Section 320 Cr.P.C. not listing Section 138 offences, they are still compoundable under the procedural framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 2. Determination of the Appropriate Court: The court examines which judicial body has the authority to accept the composition after the conviction and sentence have become final. It concludes that once a trial, appellate, or revisional court has rendered a final judgment, it becomes functus officio (having fulfilled its function) and cannot alter its judgment to accept a composition. This is supported by the binding precedent that a court cannot alter its judgment post-finalization except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors as per Section 362 Cr.P.C. 3. Invocation of Constitutional and Inherent Powers: Given that trial, appellate, and revisional courts cannot accept post-conviction compositions, the court considers whether it can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or its Constitutional powers under Article 226 to accept such compositions. The court references several precedents to establish that these powers are broad and can be invoked to secure the ends of justice. Specifically, the court cites the Supreme Court's decision in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, which clarifies that Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court also notes that the rationale behind Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that justice is served, even if it transcends the strict letter of the law. In cases where the offence is compounded post-conviction, the court can use its inherent powers to prevent the accused from undergoing imprisonment, which would be unjust in light of the composition. Conclusion: The court concludes that in cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, where the offence has been compounded post-conviction, the High Court has the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (and Article 226/227 of the Constitution) to accept such composition and prevent the execution of the sentence. This decision is based on the principle that the interests of justice may sometimes require the court to act beyond the strict confines of procedural law. The court emphasizes that each case must be evaluated on its specific facts to determine whether invoking these powers is appropriate. Final Orders: The court allows the petitions, directing that the sentences imposed on the petitioners shall not be executed, provided they deposit an amount of Rs.2,000/- each before the concerned Magistrates within 45 days. Failure to do so will result in the execution of the default sentences. The court dismisses Crl.M.A.No. 8626 of 2006 as unnecessary in light of the order in Crl.M.C. 259 of 2007.
|
