TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 three weeks from today. Revision allowed. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 34 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2021 - Hon'ble Vivek Varma, J. For the Revisionist : Vivek Chaubey For the Opposite Party : G.A.,Santosh Kumar Yadav ORDER Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 05.11.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2019 (Saran Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another), whereby the judgment and sentence dated 21.08.2019 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Varanasi has been confirmed. 2. The revisionist/applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and also to pay a fine of ₹ 3,60,000/-, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for six mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. 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. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments 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 charges against him. 16. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms. 9. 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 wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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'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 seco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
