TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Cheque dishonour conviction quashed after settlement under Section 147 despite Section 138 conviction</h1> <h3>Babu Ram Versus Punjab National Bank</h3> Babu Ram Versus Punjab National Bank - 2024:HHC:6264 Issues Involved:1. Compounding of offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Review of judgment after conviction has been upheld by higher courts.3. Legal implications of withdrawal of Special Leave Petition (SLP) and its effect on review petitions.Detailed Analysis:1. Compounding of Offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The petitioner, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sought to compound the offence under Section 147 of the Act after reaching a settlement with the respondent-bank. The court acknowledged that the respondent-bank received the full compensation amount under a One Time Settlement Scheme and had no objection to the compounding of the offence. The court noted that Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act permits the compounding of offences at any stage, including after the conviction. This position is supported by precedents such as the judgment in K. Subramanian v. R. Rajathi (2010) 15 SCC 352, where the Supreme Court allowed compounding after recording of conviction.2. Review of Judgment after Conviction has been Upheld by Higher Courts:The court examined whether it could review its own judgment dated 31.3.2023, which upheld the conviction of the petitioner. The court referred to its previous judgment in Cr.MP No. 1197 of 2017 in Cr. Revision No. 394 of 2015, which held that courts could compound offences under Section 147 of the Act even after the accused has been convicted. The court also cited the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Naresh Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, which allowed the recall of a judgment in light of a subsequent compromise between the parties.3. Legal Implications of Withdrawal of Special Leave Petition (SLP) and its Effect on Review Petitions:The court discussed the maintainability of the review petition after the withdrawal of the SLP. The petitioner argued that the withdrawal of the SLP, without reasons, did not preclude the High Court from entertaining a review petition. The court cited Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359, which held that the dismissal of an SLP in limine does not bar the filing of a review petition in the High Court. The court also referred to Kanoria Industries Limited v. Union of India (2017), which clarified that the dismissal of an SLP as withdrawn does not equate to a dismissal on merits and does not affect the maintainability of a review petition.Conclusion:The court concluded that in light of the compromise between the petitioner and the respondent-bank, and the full payment of the compensation amount, the offence could be compounded under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court was quashed, and the petitioner was acquitted of the charge. The court permitted the petitioner to have the matter compounded and discharged his bail bonds. The decision was based on the principles established in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, which allows for the compounding of offences under Section 138 even after conviction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
