2017 (7) TMI 924 - SC - Indian Laws

Offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Held that - As during the pendency of the revision case before the High Court the matter was compromised. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire amount has been paid to the first respondent. Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the first respondent has received the entire amount. Therefore, he has no objection if the conviction already recorded under Section 138 of the NI Act is set aside. Since the parties have settled their disputes, we allow the parties to compound the offence, set aside the judgment of the courts below and acquit the appellant of the charges against her.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Appeal against conviction and sentencing by lower courts.
3. Challenge of High Court's decision in Criminal Revision.
4. Compromise between parties during the pendency of the case.
5. Settlement leading to the request for compounding the offense.
6. Imposition of exemplary costs due to wasting public time.

Analysis:
The respondent filed a complaint against the appellant for defaulting on a loan repayment, leading to a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court sentenced the appellant to imprisonment, fine, and compensation. The appellant's appeal and revision petitions were unsuccessful, leading to the current appeal challenging the legality of the High Court's decision.

During the pendency of the case before the High Court, the parties reached a settlement, with both sides confirming the repayment of the entire amount in question. As a result, they requested to compound the offense. The Supreme Court allowed the parties to compound the offense, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and acquitting the appellant of the charges.

Despite the settlement, the Supreme Court imposed exemplary costs of one lakh rupees on the appellant for wasting public time. The appellant was directed to pay this amount to an orphanage within four weeks and provide an acknowledgment within one week. Failure to comply would result in the revival of the conviction and sentence against the appellant, with appropriate actions for execution to be taken by the Registrar (Judicial).

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed on the condition of the settlement between the parties and the imposition of exemplary costs on the appellant.