2021 (5) TMI 49 - HC - Indian Laws

Conviction Quashed for Negotiable Instruments Act Violation; Settlement Leads to Acquittal and Refund.

Lekh Ram Versus State Bank of India

The High Court quashed the judgments of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, acquitting the petitioner-accused ... Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - acquittal of the accused - compounding of the offence - HELD THAT:- The respondent bank has received ₹ 8,00,000/- under one time settlement, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for compounding of offence while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. [2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been categorically held that court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the courts below. The present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence by the courts below are quashed and set-aside - the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act - petition allowed. Issues:Challenge to judgment of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Analysis:The case involved a criminal revision petition challenging a judgment of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner-accused had issued a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds, leading to legal proceedings initiated by the complainant bank. The trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to two years of simple imprisonment and a compensation of Rs. 7,00,000. The appeal against this judgment was dismissed, upholding the conviction. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking acquittal. The High Court suspended the sentence pending deposit of compensation and bonds. Subsequently, the petitioner informed the court of a settlement with the bank, seeking to compound the offense under Section 147 of the Act.The petitioner presented evidence of depositing Rs. 8,00,000 as part of the settlement with the bank. The complainant bank, represented by its counsel, confirmed the receipt of the settlement amount and had no objection to compounding the offenses. The court, considering the compromise between the parties and the settlement amount received by the bank, decided to compound the offense under Section 147 of the Act. Referring to guidelines from a Supreme Court case, the court quashed the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts, acquitting the petitioner-accused of the charge under Section 138 of the Act. The interim order was vacated, bail bonds were discharged, and any amount deposited by the petitioner was to be refunded upon application. The petition was disposed of along with any pending applications.