2017 (4) TMI 977 - SC - Indian Laws

Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that - When the special leave petition came up for hearing, by order dated 12.05.2011 this Court had granted stay on condition that the appellant herein should deposit an amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) before the Trial Court i.e. the Court of Small Causes and ACMM, Bangalore, which has been duly complied with. The matter was lingering on file for quite some time. When the matter came up for hearing today i.e. on 27.03.2017, the son of the appellant, by name Srinivasan, was present in the Court. Respondent No.4/Abdul Kaleem, was present in the Court, who stated that he is representing all the legal representatives of complainant/Mohammed Hyath. We suggested to the parties and to their counsel whether they can talk to each other to arrive at an amicable settlement, for which both the parties as well as Ms. Lata Krishnamurti and Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the parties readily agreed. After talking to each other the parties have arrived at a settlement for a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lacs) including the amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) already deposited before the Trial Court. In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court rendered in Criminal Appeal is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondents are permitted to withdraw ₹ 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) deposited before the Court of Small Causes and A.C.M.M. Court, Bangalore forthwith, along with the accrued interest, on filing necessary application.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Acquittal by Trial Court - Reversal of acquittal by High Court - Settlement reached between parties - Withdrawal of deposited amount - Time granted for payment of settlement amount.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal arising from the High Court of Karnataka setting aside the acquittal of the appellant and convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant was convicted for issuing a cheque that was returned with the endorsement "account closed." The complainant alleged that the appellant borrowed a sum of money to develop a factory and failed to repay it as per the agreement. The Trial Court had initially acquitted the appellant, but the High Court reversed this decision based on the evidence presented. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

During the proceedings in the Supreme Court, a settlement was reached between the parties. The appellant agreed to pay a total sum of ?6,00,000, including an amount of ?3,00,000 already deposited before the Trial Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and acquitting the appellant of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Furthermore, the respondents were permitted to withdraw the deposited amount of ?3,00,000 along with accrued interest. The appellant was granted three months to pay an additional sum of ?3,00,000 to the respondents. The appellant's son represented him and was directed to file an affidavit of undertaking within a week. Failure to make the payment within the stipulated time would result in contempt proceedings against the appellant.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and outlined the terms for the settlement amount to be paid within the specified timeframe. The judgment resolved the issues arising from the appeal against the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the reversal of the acquittal by the High Court, and the subsequent settlement reached between the parties.