Compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the imposition of costs for delayed composition.

JUDGMENT

Savitri Ratho, J. - The petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short 'N.I. Act ') by judgment dated 28.2.2014 passed in C.T. No.1229/2010/Trial No.419 of 2012 (I.C.C. Case No.176 of 2010) by the learned J.M.F.C., Angul and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) to the complainant. This been confirmed by judgment and order dated 18.03.2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Angul in Criminal Appeal No.6/2014.

2. Perusal of the order dated 24.8.2021 passed in C.T. No.1229/2010 by the learned J.M.F.C.(I/C), Angul which has been annexed to this Criminal Revision as Annexure-3 reveals that the written acknowledgement had been filed by the complainant who was present in Court stating that he has received the full and final compensation amount from the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner to set aside the order of conviction however was rejected as the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year had been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Angul.

3. Mr. A.K.Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since more than two months. He further submits that the petitioner is a poor man but with great difficulty has paid the entire compensation amount to the complainant (Opp. Party No.2) and the dispute has been settled between the parties and the parties had filed a compromise petition before the learned J.M.F.C. Angul, but the same was rejected. He further submits that as the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable and the compounding can be done at any stage, the criminal revision may be allowed and disposed of in terms of the settlement and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner set aside. In support of his submission, he relies on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.M.Ibrahim v. K.P.Mohammed and others reported in AIR 2010 SC 276: 2010 (1) SCC 798, V.I. Uthuppan v. Thankachan & another reported in 2012 (II) OLR (SC) 496 and this Court in the case of Debabrata Dash v. Malaya Bhowmick reported in 2011 (Supp.II) OLR 366.

4. Mr.A.K.Jena, learned counsel for opp. party No.2 confirms that the dispute has been settled between the parties and the accused petitioner has paid the entire compensation amount to the opp. party and he has no objection if the case is disposed of in terms of the said settlement.

5. The copy of the compromise petition dated 23.08.2021 filed under Section 147 of the N.I. Act before the learned Magistrate has been filed by the learned counsel. It is stated in the petition that as the matter has been compromised and the complainant has received the claimed amount, the complainant does not want to proceed any more in the case. Prayer has been made in the said petition to set aside the conviction and punishment. The copy of the petition be kept in the record.

6. Mr S.S. Pradhan learned Additional Govt. Advocate who had been requested to assist the Court, referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Meters and instruments Pvt. Ltd vs Kanchan Mehta reported in (2018) 1 SCC 560 and Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 submits that it is true that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable and the conviction imposed by the Courts can be set aside at any stage on basis of such compounding, but in view of the submission of learned Attorney General of India in the case of Damodar S Prabhu ( supra) that the 'requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also depr