9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef, the facts of the case are that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act were initiated against the revisionist with the allegation that Cheque No. 829901, dated 24.08.2012 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- issued by the revisionist was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. The opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint case before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- VIIth, Varanasi under Section 138 of the Act. The proceedings of the case ultimately resulted in order of conviction. Against the order of conviction, an appeal was preferred and the appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the revisionist and confirmed the judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that now the rival parties have sorted out their dispute and have arrived at a compromise. In this regard, a compromise deed dated 10.11.2020 has been annexed as Annexure-1 to affidavit filed in support of the revision. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed a supplementary affidavit today wherein it has been stated that he has received the entire cheque amount along with interest and does not want to continue the criminal proceedings and the matter may be decided in terms of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dri vs. B.N. Suryanarayana Rao [2004 (11) SCC 510] decided by a three Judge Bench; (3) G. Sivarajan vs. Little Flower Kuries & Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. [(2004 11 SCC 400]; (4) Kishore Kumar vs. J.K. Corporation Ltd. [(2004 13 SCC 494]; (5) Sailesh Shyam Parsekar vs. Baban [(2005 (4) SCC 162]; (6) K. Gyansagar vs. Ganesh Gupta & Anr. [(2005) 7 SCC 54]; (7) K.J.B.L. Rama Reddy vs. Annapurna Seeds & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 632]; (8) Sayeed Ishaque Menon vs. Ansari Naseer Ahmed [(2005) 12 SCC 140]; (9) Vinay Devanna Nayak vs. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 305], wherein some of the earlier decisions have been noticed; and (10) Sudheer Kumar vs. Manakkandi M.K. Kunhiraman & Anr. [2008 (1) KLJ 203], which was a decision of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, wherein also the issue has been gone into in great detail. 9. The golden thread in all these decisions is that once a person is allowed to compound a case as provided for under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the conviction under Section 138 of the said Act should also be set aside. In the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak (supra), the issue was raised and after taking note of the provisions of Section 320 Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act even in a proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution. 15. Since the parties have settled their disputes, in keeping with the spirit of Section 147 of the Act, we allow the parties to compound the offence, set aside the judgment of the courts below and acquit the appellant of the charges against him. 16. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms." 10. In Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "6. Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, Solicitor General (now Attorney General for India) had appeared as amicus curiae in the present matter and referred to the facts herein as an illustration of how parties involved in cheque bounce cases usually seek the compounding of the offence at a very late stage. The interests of justice would indeed be better served if parties resorted to compounding as a method to resolve their disputes at an early stage instead of engaging in protracted litigation before several forums, thereby causing undue delay, expenditure and strain on part of the judicial system. This is clearly a situation that is causing som ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 which inserted a specific provision, i.e. Section 147 "to make the offences under the Act compoundable". We can refer to the following extract from the Statement of Objects and Reasons attached to the 2002 amendment which is self- explanatory:" 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (supra) has framed guidelines with respect to granting permission for compounding of offence at various stages. The guidelines in the form of directions in the aforesaid judgment reads as follows : 'THE GUIDELINES' "(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: (a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused. (b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed after considering the further fact that apart from the sentence of imprisonment, the Court has jurisdiction under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to award suitable compensation with default sentence under Section 64 IPC and with further powers of recovery under Section 431 Cr.P.C. With this approach, prison sentence of more than one year may not be required in all cases. 18.5) Since evidence of the complaint can be given on affidavit, subject to the Court summoning the person giving affidavit and examining him and the bank's slip being prima facie evidence of the dishonor of cheque, it is unnecessary for the Magistrate to record any further preliminary evidence. Such affidavit evidence can be read as evidence at all stages of trial or other proceedings. The manner of examination of the person giving affidavit can be as per Section 264 Cr.P.C. The scheme is to follow summary procedure except where exercise of power under second proviso to Section 143 becomes necessary, where sentence of one year may have to be awarded and compensation under Section 357(3) is considered inadequate, having regard to the amount of the cheque, the financial capacity and the conduct of the accused or any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
