The court holds that offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded at any stage of the proceedings, reaffirming their compensatory nature over punitive.

ORDER :

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Heard Mr.K.S. Karthik Raja, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.T.R.Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also this Court has taken the assistance of Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Govt. Advocate (crl.side).

2. The instant Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.303 of 2017 dated 11.02.2022 by the learned IV Addl. District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, confirming the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.366 of 2013, dated 18.09.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore.

3. The learned trial Judge has convicted the Revision Petitioner/accused under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo SI for a period of six months and also directed him to pay a compensation of Rs.5,41,000/- within two months from the date of judgment, in default, to undergo SI for two months. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court was also confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent/complainant is an authorised dealer for TVS mopeds, motor cycles and spare parts and the complaint in C.C.No.366 of 2014 was filed through its General Manager who has been given power of attorney. The Revision Petitioner is one of the authorised sub dealer for TVS mopeds, motorcycles, spare parts and all other allied products. The Revision Petitioner purchased goods on credit basis from the complainant to various dates and as per the statement of account, the accused has to pay a sum of Rs.5,47,085/-. After repeated demands, the Revision Petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.010792, dated 15.08.2006 for Rs.5,41,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Chinniampalayam, Coimbatore in favour of the respondent. As per the instructions of the accused, the cheque was presented by the respondent with his banker UTI Bank Ltd., Coimbatore Branch. The cheque was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds” on 13.02.2007 and the same was intimated to the respondent by banker's memo dated 14.02.2007. Therefore, the respondent issued a statutory notice dated 13.03.2007 calling upon the Revision Petitioner to pay the cheque amounts within 15 days. The Revision Petitioner received the notice on 15.03.2007 and thereafter he did not repay the cheque amount. Hence the complaint for the offence of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed by the respondent.

5. After recording the sworn statement of the respondent and after being satisfied that prima facie case has been made out to proceed further against the Revision Petitioner for the offence under section 138 of NI Act, the trial Court has issued summon to the Revision Petitioner. On the appearance of the Revision Petitioner, copies have been furnished and the substance of allegation has been put to him. The Revision Petitioner has denied the allegation and has claimed to be tried.

6. After considering the arguments, the learned trial court has found the Revision Petitioner guilty of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Revision Petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a compensation of Rs.5,41,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of judgment and in default, to undergo a s