2011 (11) TMI 854 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court Quashes Conviction, Allows Compounding

The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Application, quashed the previous judgments, permitted compounding of the offence under section 138 of the ... Compounding of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Quashing of conviction and acquittal on compromise - Refund of amounts deposited in court pursuant to settlement - Treatment of fine as costs payable to the Government - Application of Apex Court ratio permitting compromise in cheque bounce casesCompounding of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Quashing of conviction and acquittal on compromise - Application of Apex Court ratio permitting compromise in cheque bounce cases - The conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act were quashed and the accused was acquitted in view of a bona fide settlement between the parties. - HELD THAT: - The Court applied the ratio of the Apex Court in Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., which recognises that, having regard to the object of Section 138 and the legislative framework including Section 147, compromise between the drawer and the payee may be permitted and ordinarily compounding should not be refused. On the facts, the complainant represented to the Court that the matter was settled and the accused deposited the settlement amount with the Registry and paid a portion in cash. In light of the settlement and the authoritative principle that compromise can dispose of such cases, the Court exercised its power to allow the parties to compound the offence, quashed the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and the dismissal by the appellate Court, and recorded acquittal of the accused. [Paras 6, 8, 9]Revision allowed; convictions and sentences set aside and accused acquitted pursuant to the parties' settlement.Refund of amounts deposited in court pursuant to settlement - Treatment of fine as costs payable to the Government - The amount deposited in the Registry pursuant to the settlement was ordered to be refunded to the complainant on proper identification, while the fine earlier paid by the accused was retained as costs for the Government and not refunded. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded the factual position that part of the settlement amount had been paid in cash to the complainant and part deposited in the Registry. Having permitted compounding and quashed the convictions, the Court directed that the Rs.25,000 deposited in the Registry be refunded to the complainant on proper identification. However, the Court declined to refund the fine already paid by the accused, treating that payment as costs payable to the Government. [Paras 5, 9]Registry deposit to be refunded to the complainant on identification; fine paid by the accused to be treated as Government costs and not refunded.Final Conclusion: Revision petition allowed; concurrent conviction and sentence and the dismissal in appeal quashed, accused acquitted on compromise; registry deposit refunded to complainant while previously paid fine retained as Government costs. Issues involved: Conviction u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Criminal Appeal u/s 374 of CrPC, Challenge to judgments, Compounding of offence.Conviction u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act:The applicant-accused was convicted for offences u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Metropolitan Magistrate and sentenced to imprisonment and fine. The applicant appealed to the City Session Judge, which was dismissed. Both judgments were challenged in the present Criminal Revision Application.Criminal Appeal u/s 374 of CrPC:The applicant-accused, dissatisfied with the conviction, filed a Criminal Appeal u/s 374 of the CrPC before the City Session Judge, which was subsequently dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City.Challenge to judgments:Both the judgments convicting the applicant-accused were challenged in the present Criminal Revision Application before the High Court.Compounding of offence:The applicant and the complainant reached a settlement where the applicant agreed to pay a certain amount. The complainant confirmed the settlement before the Court. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the High Court allowed the Revision Application, quashed the previous judgments, permitted compounding of the offence, and acquitted the accused. The fine paid by the accused was treated as costs towards the Government and not refunded to the accused.