TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compound the offence at initial stages, in terms of guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. [ 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT] , the revisionist is directed to pay a cost of 15% of the cheque amount to the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court, Allahabad within a period of four weeks from today. Revision allowed. - Criminal Revision No. - 814 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2021 - Hon'ble Vivek Varma, J. For the Revisionist : Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi For the Opposite Party : G.A.,Shiv Kumar Singh Rajawat ORDER HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA,J. 1. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.7.2019 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act (UPSEB), Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2018 (Shashank Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. And another), whereby the judgment and order dated 10.5.2018 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 1583 of 2017 (Smt. Aruna Gupta vs. Shashank Jaiswal) has been confirmed. 2. The revisionist/applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded sentence to undergo ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 followed in the case of (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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .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 appellate stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, we find no reason to reject the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad 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, 1881 was amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment 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. 10. The Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith 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 passed, is to be exercised 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 43 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
