Post-conviction cheque dishonour settlement can be recognised by High Court despite final disposal, in genuine compoundable cases.

An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains compoundable under Section 147 even after conviction and sentence have become final, because the scheme does not impose a time limit restricting composition to earlier stages. However, once a judgment has been finally disposed of, the trial, appellate and revisional courts are functus officio and cannot later alter the conviction under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a genuine post-disposal settlement, the High Court may, in a fit case, use its inherent and constitutional powers to give effect to the composition and secure the ends of justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be compounded after conviction and sentence have become final. (ii) Whether such composition can be accepted by the trial court, appellate court or revisional court after they have disposed of the matter. (iii) Whether the High Court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or its constitutional powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to give effect to such post-finality composition.

Issue (i): Whether an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be compounded after conviction and sentence have become final.

Analysis: The offence under Section 138 is made compoundable by Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 notwithstanding the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The provision is treated as enabling compounding under the scheme of Section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the absence of an express time limit in that scheme means composition is not confined to the pre-trial or appellate stage. The Court held that a lawful composition can even be reached after conviction and sentence have attained finality.

Conclusion: Yes. Post-finality composition of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is legally permissible.

Issue (ii): Whether such composition can be accepted by the trial court, appellate court or revisional court after they have disposed of the matter.

Analysis: Once the judgment has been signed and the matter finally disposed of, the trial court, appellate court and revisional court become functus officio. Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars alteration or review of the final order except for clerical or arithmetical correction. Therefore those courts cannot later accept a composition and convert the conviction into an acquittal.

Conclusion: No. The trial court, appellate court and revisional court cannot accept such composition after final disposal.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or its constitutional powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to give effect to such post-finality composition.

Analysis: The Court held that Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not exhaust the High Court's inherent power where the facts disclose a genuine post-disposal settlement in a compoundable matter. A subsequent composition constitutes a changed circumstance, and in such a situation Section 362 does not bar the High Court from acting under Section 482 or Articles 226 and 227 to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. The Court also noted the humane consideration that compelling imprisonment despite settlement would be unjust in such cases.

Conclusion: Yes. In a fit case, the High Court may invoke Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to give effect to post-finality composition.

Final Conclusion: The High Court affirmed the availability of inherent and constitutional jurisdiction to recognise a genuine post-revision composition in a compoundable cheque dishonour case, and granted relief by preventing execution of the sentences on conditions imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an offence is compoundable and a genuine settlement occurs after final disposal, the High Court may, in a fit case and in the interests of justice, invoke its inherent or constitutional powers to give effect to the composition notwithstanding the bar on review by the final courts below.

---