9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 236 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of cheque - compounding of offence under Section 147 of the Act - amicable settlement of dispute - whether this court after upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the court below can proceed to review its own judgment dated 31.3.2023, whereby criminal revision petition having been filed by the petitioner accused came to be dismissed or not? - HELD THAT - This Court vide judgment in Gulab Singh v. Vidya Sagar Sharma 2017 (12) TMI 1837 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT , while relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as other Constitutional Courts has already held that court, while exercising power under Section 147 of Act can proceed to compound offence even in those cases, where accused stands convicted. Since in the case at hand, petitioner after being convicted under Section 138 of the Act has compromised the matter with the respondent-complainant-Bank and in terms thereof has already paid the entire amount of compensation, prayer for compounding the offence can be accepted in terms of judgment passed by the Hon ble Apex Court in DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it has been categorically held that court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the courts below. The parties are permitted to get the matter compounded in the light of the compromise arrived inter se them. Accordingly, judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court is quashed and set-aside and petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. His bail bonds are discharged. Amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner before the court below be released in his favour on his filing appropriate application. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Compounding of offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Review of judgment after conviction has been upheld by higher courts. 3. Legal implications of withdrawal of Special Leave Petition (SLP) and its effect on review petitions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Compounding of Offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The petitioner, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sought to compound the offence under Section 147 of the Act after reaching a settlement with the respondent-bank. The court acknowledged that the respondent-bank received the full compensation amount under a One Time Settlement Scheme and had no objection to the compounding of the offence. The court noted that Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act permits the compounding of offences at any stage, including after the conviction. This position is supported by precedents such as the judgment in K. Subramanian v. R. Rajathi (2010) 15 SCC 352, where the Supreme Court allowed compounding after recording of conviction. 2. Review of Judgment after Conviction has been Upheld by Higher Courts: The court examined whether it could review its own judgment dated 31.3.2023, which upheld the conviction of the petitioner. The court referred to its previous judgment in Cr.MP No. 1197 of 2017 in Cr. Revision No. 394 of 2015, which held that courts could compound offences under Section 147 of the Act even after the accused has been convicted. The court also cited the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Naresh Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, which allowed the recall of a judgment in light of a subsequent compromise between the parties. 3. Legal Implications of Withdrawal of Special Leave Petition (SLP) and its Effect on Review Petitions: The court discussed the maintainability of the review petition after the withdrawal of the SLP. The petitioner argued that the withdrawal of the SLP, without reasons, did not preclude the High Court from entertaining a review petition. The court cited Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359, which held that the dismissal of an SLP in limine does not bar the filing of a review petition in the High Court. The court also referred to Kanoria Industries Limited v. Union of India (2017), which clarified that the dismissal of an SLP as withdrawn does not equate to a dismissal on merits and does not affect the maintainability of a review petition. Conclusion: The court concluded that in light of the compromise between the petitioner and the respondent-bank, and the full payment of the compensation amount, the offence could be compounded under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court was quashed, and the petitioner was acquitted of the charge. The court permitted the petitioner to have the matter compounded and discharged his bail bonds. The decision was based on the principles established in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, which allows for the compounding of offences under Section 138 even after conviction.
|
