TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether delay in filing the revision petition deserved to be condoned. (ii) Whether, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required to be set aside and the petitioner acquitted.
Issue (i): Whether delay in filing the revision petition deserved to be condoned.
Analysis: The parties informed the Court that the underlying dispute had been amicably settled. The Court found the delay to be bona fide and not intentional, and treated the explanation as sufficient for the purpose of condonation.
Conclusion: The delay was condoned.
Issue (ii): Whether, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required to be set aside and the petitioner acquitted.
Analysis: The Court held that the dispute was essentially private in nature and did not involve a serious offence against society. Relying on the principles governing exercise of inherent and revisional powers in the light of settlement, it concluded that continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of process, as the complainant did not wish to pursue the matter further.
Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the petitioner was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed on the basis of compromise, resulting in setting aside of the appellate judgment and restoration of liberty to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the dispute underlying a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act has been amicably settled and the offence is essentially private in character, the High Court may exercise its inherent and revisional powers to set aside the conviction if continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process and would not advance the ends of justice.
TaxTMI 
