TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 817
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Vide order dated 24.10.2019, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was recorded to the effect that the petitioner has deposited some amount i.e. Rs.50,000/- in favour of the respondent No.1. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned and the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. After returning the file from Mediation Centre the matter was taken up on 21.02.2022 and it was submitted that after various mediation proceedings, an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- has been remitted. Thereafter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Senior Advocate, contended that since a specific power had been given to the parties to a proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act under Section 147 to compound the offence, there could be no reason as to why the same cannot be permitted even after conviction, which had been affirmed upto the High Court. It was urged that in order to facilitate settlement of disputes, the legislature thought it fit to insert Section 147 by Amending Act 55 of 2002. Such amendment came into effect from 6th February, 2003, and provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under the Act would be compoundable. 6. Mr. Rohtagi urged that in view of the nonobstante clause, the provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CC 494]; (5) Sailesh Shyam Parsekar vs. Baban [(2005) 4 SCC 162]; (6) K. Gyansagar vs. Ganesh Gupta & Anr. [(2005) 7 SCC 54]; (7) K.J.B.L. Rama Reddy vs. Annapurna Seeds & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 632]; (8) Sayeed Ishaque Menon vs. Ansari Naseer Ahmed [(2005) 12 SCC 140]; (9) Vinay Devanna Nayak vs. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 305], wherein some of the earlier decisions have been noticed; and (10) Sudheer Kumar vs. Manakkandi M.K. Kunhiraman & Anr. [2008 (1) KLJ 203], which was a decision of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, wherein also the issue has been gone into in great detail. 9. The golden thread in all these decisions is that once a person is allowed to compound a case as provided for under Section 147 of the N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n expressly mentioned in the amended section to a proceeding under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act. 11. Apart from the above, this Court is further empowered under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass appropriate orders in line with Sub-Section (8) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. in an application under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act, in order to do justice to the parties. 12. As far as the non-obstante clause included in Section 147 of the 1881 Act is concerned, the 1881 Act being a special statute, the provisions of Section 147 will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Code relating to compounding of offences. The various decisions cited by Mr. Rohtagi on this issue does not add to the above position. 13. It is true ....