9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntered into between the parties - in case the revisionist deposits 15% of the cheque amount to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad within the stipulated period, the judgment and sentence dated 06.09.2018 passed by the trial Court duly confirmed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 01.02.2020, is set aside. Revision allowed. - Hon'ble Vivek Varma , J. For the Revisionist : Sameer Jain For the Opposite Party : G. A., Nagesh Kumar ORDER 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is taken on record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 01.02.2020 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act (U.P.S.E.B.), Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 2018 (Pt. Chhotey Lal Pandey v. State of U.P. and another), whereby the judgment and sentence dated 06.09.2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 1369 of 2017 (Santosh Varma v. Pt. Chhotey Lal) has been confirmed. 3. The revisionist has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the Act ) and awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and perused the record. 8. The law regarding compounding of offence under Negotiable Instruments Act is no more res integra and the offences under the said Act can be compounded at any stage of the proceedings. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. M. Ibrahim vs. K.P. Mohammad and another, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 798, has held as under : 7. Mr. Rohtagi submitted that the said position had been accepted by this Court in various decisions, such as in the case of O.P. Dholakia vs. State of Haryana Anr. [(2000) 1 SCC 762], wherein it was held that since the petitioner had already entered into a compromise with the complainant and the complainant had appeared through counsel and stated that the entire money had been received by him and he had no objection if the conviction already recorded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is set aside, the Hon'ble Judges thought it appropriate to grant permission, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, to compound the offence. While doing so, this Court also indicated that necessarily the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Act stood annulled. 8. The said view has been consistently followe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments Act, 1881, by amendment, an analogy may be drawn as to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., although, the same has not been expressly mentioned in the amended section to a proceeding under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act. 12. Apart from the above, this Court is further empowered under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass appropriate orders in line with Sub-Section (8) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. in an application under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act, in order to do justice to the parties. 13. As far as the non-obstante clause included in Section 147 of the 1881 Act is concerned, the 1881 Act being a special statute, the provisions of Section 147 will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Code relating to compounding of offences. The various decisions cited by Mr. Rohtagi on this issue does not add to the above position. 14. It is true that the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 138 during the later stages of litigation. In fact in O.P. Dholakia v. State of Haryana, (2000) 1 SCC 672, a division bench of this Court had permitted the compounding of the offence even though the petitioner's conviction had been upheld by all the three designated forums. After noting that the petitioner had already entered into a compromise with the complainant, the bench had rejected the State's argument that this Court need not interfere with the conviction and sentence since it was open to the parties to enter into a compromise at an earlier stage and that they had not done so. The bench had observed:- 3. ... taking into consideration the nature of the offence in question and the fact that the complainant and the accused have already entered into a compromise, we think it appropriate to grant permission in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, to compound. Similar reliefs were granted in orders reported as Sivasankaran v. State of Kerala Anr., (2002) 8 SCC 164, Kishore Kumar v. J.K. Corporation Ltd., (2004) 12 SCC 494 and Sailesh Shyam Parsekar v. Baban, (2005) 4 SCC 162, among other cases. 9. As mentioned above, the Negotiable Instruments Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s may be appropriate to proceedings under Chapter XVII of the Act. Thus read, principle of Section 258 Cr.P.C. will apply and the Court can close the proceedings and discharge the accused on satisfaction that the cheque amount with assessed costs and interest is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with the punitive aspect. 18.2) The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the Court. 18.3) Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused. 18.4) Procedure for trial of cases under Chapter XVII of the Act has normally to be summary. The discretion of the Magistrate under second proviso to Section 143, to hold that it was undesirable to try the case summarily as sentence of more than one year may have to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
