TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e application under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act even in a proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution. 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. Appeal allowed. - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2281 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 2-12-2009 - ALTAMAS KABIR AND JOSEPH, CYRIAC, JJ. JUDGEMENT ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appellant issued a cheque to the first respondent for an amount of Rs.95,000/- in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. However, when the cheque was presented by the first respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led. 6. At the very initial stage of hearing, a question was raised on behalf of the appellant as to whether an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, could be compounded under Section 147 of the said Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C. 7. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Advocate, contended that since a specific power had been given to the parties to a proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act under Section 147 to compound the offence, there could be no reason as to why the same cannot be permitted even after conviction, which had been affirmed upto the High Court. It was urged that in order to facilitate settlement of disputes, the legislature thought it fit to insert Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f (1) Anil Kumar Haritwal Anr. vs. Alka Gupta Anr. [(2004) 4 SCC 366]; (2) B.C. Seshadri 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. Manak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same being allowed to be compounded. Inasmuch as, it is with a similar object in mind that Section 147 has been inserted into the Negotiable Instruments 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. 10. 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. 11. As far as the non-obstante clause included in Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
