2021 (1) TMI 566 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal dismissed, acquittal upheld based on full compensation; Court highlights compensatory nature of provision.

The Court dismissed the appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Appellate Court's ... Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of accused - appellant submitted that the Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record had convicted respondent no.2­accused for the alleged offence under the said Act, which has been reversed by the Appellate Court by misinterpreting the evidence and solely on the ground that the respondent no.2­accused had deposited ₹ 2,00,000/­ towards compensation, interest and cost - HELD THAT:- It would be beneficial to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S. METERS AND INSTRUMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS KANCHAN MEHTA [2017 (10) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT], whereby it has been observed by the Supreme Court that though the compounding of offence requires consent of both the parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the interest of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused. In the present case, though the respondent no.2 was convicted by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court acquitted him considering the fact that the respondent no.2 had deposited ₹ 2,00,000/­ towards compensation alongwith interest and cost, which was four times amount of cheque in question, and therefore, it could be said that the complainant was fully compensated, applying the principle laid down in case of Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court being discretionary in nature following the judgment of Supreme Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said impugned order passed by the Appellate Court. Appeal dismissed. Issues:Appeal against judgment and order of acquittal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arising from a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.Analysis:The appellant, the original complainant, filed a complaint against the respondent, the original accused, for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court convicted the respondent, directing imprisonment and compensation. The respondent appealed, depositing a significant amount towards compensation pending the appeal, leading to acquittal by the Appellate Court. The appellant appealed against this judgment.The appellant argued that the Appellate Court misinterpreted evidence and solely relied on the deposited amount by the respondent. The respondent's counsel highlighted the respondent's actions of sending a demand draft and subsequent deposit, emphasizing the adequacy of the compensation deposited, citing a Supreme Court decision.The Court noted undisputed facts of the demand draft sent by the respondent and the subsequent deposit made pending the appeal. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. case, the Court discussed the principles related to the compounding of the offence under section 138 of the Act, emphasizing the compensatory nature of the provision and the discretion of the Court to discharge the accused if the complainant is duly compensated.Considering the facts of the case, the Court observed that the respondent's deposit was four times the amount of the cheque in question, leading to full compensation for the complainant. The Court held that the Appellate Court's decision was discretionary, following the Supreme Court's judgment, and declined to interfere with it, ultimately dismissing the present appeal for lack of merits.Therefore, the appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arising from a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was dismissed by the Court based on the principles of compensation and the discretion of the Appellate Court in light of the Supreme Court's decision.