<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (12) TMI 444 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165228</link>
    <description>An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was treated as compoundable under Section 147, which overrides the restriction in Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences under that Act. Because the parties had genuinely settled the dispute and the cheque amount was paid and accepted in full and final settlement, there was no reason to refuse compounding. The conviction and sentence were therefore set aside, and the accused was entitled to acquittal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2019 18:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356635" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (12) TMI 444 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165228</link>
      <description>An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was treated as compoundable under Section 147, which overrides the restriction in Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences under that Act. Because the parties had genuinely settled the dispute and the cheque amount was paid and accepted in full and final settlement, there was no reason to refuse compounding. The conviction and sentence were therefore set aside, and the accused was entitled to acquittal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165228</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>