Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1844
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
V. Deivanayagam - Petitioner
Versus
Saravanan - Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 13999 of 2019
Decided On : 03-10-2019
For the Petitioner:K. Samidurai, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the relevance of changed circumstances, and the exercise of inherent jurisdiction in the interest of justice.
Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Compromise under Section 320 Cr.P.C. - [Negotiable Instrument Act, Section 138] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226/227 of the Constitution, as well as the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The judgment also referenced the case law and interpretations related to the composition of offences before and after the commencement of prosecution or after the sentence has become final. The court considered the principle of functus officio and the limitations on invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after the disposal of the revision. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering changed circumstances and the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. The court also highlighted the distinction between review and reconsideration based on changed circumstances, and the relevance of such circumstances in justifying the invocation of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. despite the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions and principles, leading to the release of the petitioner from prison.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought direction to record the compromise and acquit him from conviction and sentence imposed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner had been convicted and sentenced, and despite a revision modifying the sentence, he was remanded to prison for non-compliance with the conditions imposed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the change in circumstances, including the petitioner's compliance with the conditions and the acceptance of the entire amount by the complainant, and decided to release the petitioner from prison.
Issues: The key issues involved the petitioner's request for acquittal based on the compromise, the non-compliance with the conditions imposed by the court, and the invocation of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after the disposal of the revision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the relevance of changed circumstances, and the exercise of inherent jurisdiction in the interest of justice.
Final Decision: The petitioner was released from prison based on the court's consideration of the change in circumstances and the petitioner's compliance with the conditions imposed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to record the compromise and acquit the petitioner from conviction and sentence imposed by I Additional Sub Judge, Tirunelveli in CA No.64 of 2005 dated 31.03.2006 in confirming the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District in CC No.542 of 2003 dated 17.2.2005 and release the petitioner from Central Prison, Palayamkottai by compounding the offence.
1. This petition has been filed seeking direction to record the compromise and acquit the petitioner from conviction and sentence imposed by I Additional Sub Judge, Tirunelveli in CA No.64 of 2005 dated 31.03.2006 confirming the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District in CC No.542 of 2003 dated 17.2.2005 and release the petitioner from Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner and in the said proceedings, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment by judgment dated 17.02.2005. As against which, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.64 of 2005 and the learned I Additional Sub Judge, Tirunelveli vide judgment dated 31.03.2006 dismissed the same and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred revision before this Court in Crl.R.C(MD) No.69 of 2007 and this Court by order dated 03.12.2010 modified the sentence and directed him to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to the fine amount already paid as compensation to the complainant instead of one year simple imprisonment imposed by the court below. Even after the dismissal of the revision, the petitioner did not comply with the conditions imposed by this Court. Therefore, he was remanded to prison on 30.08.2019.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as directed by this court, the petitioner has now complied with the said condition and paid the entire amount to the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant has also accepted the same. Today the defacto complainant also present before the Court and stated that the entire amount was received by him from the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of R.Sivakala vs. D.Sethuram in [2019 (2) T.N.L.R.368 (Mad)], wherein it is held as follows:
“5. .......D.Simpson and Ors. Versus S.T.Perumal and Ors reported in MANU/TN/0928/2014, wherein this Court had elaborately dealt, as regards the principal of functus officio would not apply even after the dismissal of the revision filed before this Court and making reliance on Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in these aspects has held as follows:-
“21. Having so understood the sweep of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I need only mention that the powers under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution are coextensive if not wider in its sweep. The powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. as also Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution are available with the Court to do justice in a given case when the conscience of the Court is satisfied that powers must be invoked.
22. It will be apposite to straight away look at Section 320 Cr. P.C. again. Section 320 does not specifically refer to composition prior to the commencement of the prosecution or of composition after the sentence has become final. Section 320, which must be reckoned as consolidating the law relating to composition, does not specifically refer to pre-cognizance and post-finality (of conviction) compositions. Section 320(9) Cr. P.C. only says that there shall be no composition except in accordance with the provisions of Section 320 Cr. P.C. In as much as Section 320 does not specifically refer to compositions-precognizance or po
