(Petition praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada to accept Annexure-I in the proceedings, C.C.No.30/2003 and pass appropriate order therein.

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court be pleased to direct closing up of all the proceedings in S.T.No.825 of 2006 on the file of the Hon’ble Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class-II (Mobile), Kottayam, after extending the time granted for deposit of the fine amount, and also to recall the warrant issued against the applicant.)

Common Order: Common question of law raised in these petitions is whether after the Revision Petition is finally disposed of by the High Court on merit and the final order is signed it could accept composition entered between the accused and complainant under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”).

2. Revision petitions arose from conviction and sentence of petitioners for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. This Court disposed of the revision petitions on merit as per orders dated 10.06.2009 and 06.08.2009, respectively as per which conviction of petitioners was confirmed but the sentence on them was modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and payment of fine as stated in the respective orders. It was also directed that fine if realized shall be given to respondent No.1 as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Now petitioners state that they have settled the case with respondent No.1 by paying the amount to respondent No.1 directly to his satisfaction. In Crl.M.A.No.4554 of 2010 petitioner prays that direction may be given to the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kattakkada to accept Annexure-I (petition to compound the offence) and pass appropriate orders thereon. In Crl.M.A.No.4435 of 2010 petitioner’s prayer is to accept the composition entered between him and respondent No.1 under Section 320 of the Code read with Section 147 of the Act. Learned counsel for petitioners contend that notwithstanding that revision petitions were finally disposed of by this Court it is within the power of this Court invoking Section 482 of the Code and 147 of the Act to accept composition entered between the parties and pass appropriate orders or issue appropriate direction to the learned magistrate to accept the composition. Learned counsel rely on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ibrahim K.M. v. K.P. Mohammed and another (2010 (1) KHC 190) and Domodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010 (2) KHC 428). Reliance is also placed on the commentaries on Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by Sengupta at page No.1280 where the author has stated that even after conclusion of all proceedings and while the drawer is undergoing sentence of imprisonment, the case (for offence under Section 138 of the Act) can be compounded and that there is no formal embargo in doing so. The author has placed reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court in Kripal Singh v. Balvinder (2004 Cr.L.J 3786) where the learned Single Judge said,

“So the parties, in reference to offence under section 138, N.I.Act read with section 147 of the said Act are at liberty to compound the matter at any stage even after the dismissal of the revision application. Even a convict undergoing imprisonment with the liability to pay the amount of fine imposed by the Court and/or under an obligation to pay the amount of compensation, if awarded, as per the scheme of N.I.Act, can compound the matter. …….”

3. I stated that revision petitions preferred by petitioners arising from judgment of appellate courts have been disposed of by this Court finally on the respective dates aforesaid confirming conviction but modifying the sentence to simple imprisonment till rising of the court and payment of fine as refe