Compromising a civil suit does not negate the criminal liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

Headnote:
Cheque - Criminal Conviction - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, emphasizing that the existence of a civil compromise does not negate criminal liability, affirming the lower courts' decisions.
Fact of the Case:

The accused was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for issuing a cheque that was not honored, which led to his imprisonment and a financial compensation order against him. He later compromised a related civil suit for a lesser amount.
Issues: Whether the compromise in the civil suit affects the criminal conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Compromise on a civil claim does not absolve the accused from criminal liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act; the obligation under the cheque remains binding.
Final Decision: Conviction upheld, sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine.

O R D E R

Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.1257/1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Palakkad. The 1st respondent herein prosecuted him accusing offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act basing upon a cheque for Rs.60,000/-. Since the revision petitioner pleaded not guilty, he was sent for trial. After trial, the revision petitioner was found guilty. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to rigours imprisonment for six months with direction to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent. Though he preferred Crl.A.229/2000 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad, he was not successful. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed.

2. One of the main argument that was advanced is that on the same cause of action the 1st respondent preferred a suit as O.S.No.292/2000 before the Munsiff Court, Alathur and that it was compromised whereby the revision petitioner had to pay : 2:

only a sum of Rs.32,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per anum charged upon the plaint schedule property and in that compromise petition, the 1st respondent had agreed to withdraw the criminal appeal.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgments of the courts below in the light of the compromise petition, I find no error, illegality or impropriety committed by the courts below in finding the revision petitioner guilty. Though the 1st respondent agreed to compound the civil suit for a lesser sum, the execution of the cheque and liability are admitted. The fact that the civil suit was compounded for a lesser sum is not a reason to interfere with the conviction under challenge. Therefore, the conviction under challenge is unassailable.

4. As regards the sentence, I find that the revision petitioner was aged 58 years as on 2000 and now he is in his seventies. In the above circumstance, taking note that the revision petitioner had compounded the civil suit and the 1st respondent had agreed to settle the matter for a lesser amount, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to a little leniency : 3:

in sentence and that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with direction to pay Rs.45,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent would meet the ends of justice.

In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The revision petitioner is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent. In default of non payment of fine and compensation, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month and three months respectively. In the event the revision petitioner produces an order of recording satisfaction of the decree in the civil suit before the trial court, the trial court shall record that the compensation amount is paid to the 1st respondent. The revision petitioner is granted two months time to remit the fine and compensation.

Sd/-

P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. cl /true copy/

P.S. to Judge

: 4:

P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.

............................................

Crl.R.P.NO.105 OF 2003 ...........................................

3rd day of January, 2012

O R D E R

: 5:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document