2025 (12) TMI 1455

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....revisional stage. 2. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced for committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'N.I. Act') by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Ernakulam in C.C.No.1322/1998. The said conviction and sentence stand concurrently confirmed by the Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, in Crl. Appeal No. 463/2003 and this Court in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 488/2005. 3. The petitioners are back before this Court, invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to quash the conviction and sentence on the grounds that they were unaware of the dismissal of the revision petition and the dispute that led ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on for this Court to exercise its inherent powers to set aside the conviction and sentence even after the post-conviction stage. 7. However, doubting the correctness of the above judgment, the matter was referred to the Division Bench; and in Sudheer Kumar @ Sudheer v. Manakkandi M.K. Kunhiraman and another [2008 (1) KHC 127], it was held as follows: "15. Once High Court confirms the conviction in revision, it cannot be interfered with by the High Court in view of the subsequent compounding out of Court. There is no provision under S.320 or any in the NI Act enabling the Court to accept or permit the compounding after conviction has become final and no appeal or revision is pending against the conviction. In P. Damodaran and Oth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unction officio (sic functus officio) to allow the request of the parties for compounding of the offences." 16. S.362 of CrPC prohibits the Court after it has signed its judgment and final order is passed from altering or reviewing the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. In Tanveer Aquil v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, 1990 Supp SCC 63 considered the issue. In that case, in appeal, Court confirmed the conviction. After judgment was pronounced, parties compromised the matter and filed a petition to compound the matter. It was dismissed as High Court cannot entertain such a petition in view of the bar under S.362. Apex Court confirmed the same as once judgment is pronounced, High Court has no jurisdiction....