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 the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be set aside in revision on the basis of a genuine compromise between the parties, and whether the petitions could be allowed subject to deposit of the stipulated amount.
Analysis: The dispute in all the connected matters stood resolved through a mediation settlement, under which the complainant had received the cheque amounts as well as an additional agreed sum, and both sides acknowledged the compromise to be voluntary, bona fide, and free from coercion or undue influence. The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was treated as one having a compensatory character, with the Court placing emphasis on the permissibility of compounding and the revisional power to secure the ends of justice where the compromise is genuine. The Court also accepted the condition of deposit of 15% of the cheque amount with the U.T. Legal Services Authority as part of the relief.
Conclusion: The revision petitions were allowed, the convictions and appellate affirmations were set aside, and the petitioners were acquitted subject to deposit of the directed amount within the stipulated time.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a compromise in a Section 138 prosecution is genuine, voluntary, and fully acted upon, the revisional court may invoke its powers to permit compounding and set aside the conviction in furtherance of the ends of justice, subject to such conditions as may be imposed.