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 and the offence compounded on the basis of a genuine compromise reached between the parties during pendency of the criminal revision.
Analysis: The compromise was found to be genuine, voluntary and settled between the parties, removing the dispute regarding the monetary transaction. The Court relied on the settled principle that compounding in cheque dishonour matters can be permitted even at the revisional stage, where the compromise is bona fide and serves the ends of justice. The statutory scheme under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was treated as enabling compounding, and the revisional power was exercised to give effect to the settlement.
Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the petitioner was permitted to compound the offence, subject to deposit of 15% of the cheque amount within the stipulated period.
Final Conclusion: The criminal revision succeeded on the basis of compromise, resulting in the setting aside of the impugned judgments and conditional permission to compound the cheque dishonour offence.
Ratio Decidendi: A genuine and voluntary compromise in a cheque dishonour case may justify exercise of revisional and inherent jurisdiction to permit compounding and to set aside conviction and sentence in the interest of justice.