SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 1943

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Agrawal, P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Sayeed Ishaque Memon - Appellant
Versus
Ansari Naseer Ahmed and another - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 616 of 2005 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 500 of 2005 with No. 617 of 2005 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 498 of 2005)
Decided On : 25-04-2005

Recognition of lawful compromise and its impact on setting aside convictions and sentences.

Headnote:

Compromise - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Indian Penal Code - The court allowed the appeals and set aside the convictions and sentences against the appellant in view of the compromise between the parties.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant filed appeals against the convictions, which were dismissed, and then filed revisions before the High Court. The parties later filed a joint petition for compromise.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellant in both cases due to the compromise between the parties.

Issues:

Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized the lawful compromise between the parties and accorded permission for the same, leading to the setting aside of the convictions and sentences against the appellant.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges in both cases in view of the compromise between the parties.

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The sole appellant was convicted by two separate orders passed by the trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. He was further convicted in both the cases under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Against the orders of convictions in both the cases, the appellant preferred appeals which were dismissed and thereafter revisions filed by the appellant before the High Court having failed, the present appeals by way of special leave have been filed.

4. In the present case, both the parties have filed a joint petition for compromise and they have compromised their disputes in both the cases. In our view, compromise is lawful, as such we accord permission to compromise the same.

5. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, convictions and sentences awarded against the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges in both the cases in view of the compromise.

Appeals allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top