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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which had culminated in conviction confirmed by the High Court, could thereafter be reopened and compounded under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, notwithstanding the bar under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The Court held that though Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes offences under that Act compoundable and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court, those powers cannot be exercised to alter or review a judgment that has attained finality. Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars alteration or review of a signed judgment except for clerical or arithmetical errors, and that embargo cannot be bypassed by resort to inherent powers. The Court distinguished the stage at which compounding may be permitted from a case where conviction has already been confirmed on merits, holding that permitting compounding after final judgment would effectively undo the conviction and amount to a prohibited re-writing of the judgment.
Conclusion: The request to compound the offence after confirmation of conviction was not maintainable, and the petition was rejected.