TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/fifth accused Salem are set aside and this criminal revision is disposed of - revision disposed off. - Crl.R.C.No.890 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2018 - Mr. M. Dhandapani J. For the Petitioner : Mr.G.Arulmurugan For the Respondent : Mr.S.Kalyanaraman ORDER This criminal revision has been filed seeking to call for the records in connection with the judgment dated 07.06.2018 made in C.A.No.159 of 2010 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, confirming the judgment dated 12.10.2010 made in C.C.No.291 of 2001 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Salem and to set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same, the present revision is filed. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower Court punished the first accused company and other accused as Directors of that company and fixing the vicarious liability, the petitioner was convicted along with the other accused. He would further submit that the petitioner inorder to appropriate his responsibility in the said instruments paid a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) by way of demand draft bearing No.'824658' dated 14.09.2018 drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Pallipalayam Branch, in favour of 'TEE-YES Textiles' towards full and final settlement of his liability. The respondent/ complainant accepted and received the payment and has consented for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no further claim or any amount due from the above petitioner and the entire issues has been settled, compensated and compounded with the petitioner alone. As such the offence under Section 138 has been compounded by resorting to Section 147 of the NI Act. In view of the compounding of the offence the conviction against the petitioner shall stand set aside having the effect of acquitting the petitioner as per Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. 6.It is submitted that the above settlement is only between the petitioner herein and the complainant and it will be in no way applicable to the other accused. 7.In the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Syed Babalal H., reported in [2010 (5) SCC 663] , the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 138, Negotiable Instruments Act Trackling an avalanche of cases (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2009) at p.5]: ''...Unlike that for other forms of crime, the punishment here (insofar as the complainant is concerned) is not a means of seeking retribution, but is more a means to ensure payment of money. The complainant's interest likes primarily in recovering the money rather than seeking the drawer of the cheque in jail. The threat of jail is only a mode to ensure recovery. As against the accused who is willing to undergo a jail term, there is little available as remedy for the holder of the cheque.'' 8.With the above principles in mind, if this Court see the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
