The court establishes that offenses under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded, leading to acquittal when parties reach a compromise.

Headnote:This revision petition arises from a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the trial court sentenced the accused to three months imprisonment and compensation. The appeal led to a modified sentence, but a subsequent compromise between parties allowed for acquittal. As per Section 147 N. I. Act and applicable legal provisions, the Court confirmed the acquittal. The accused is ordered to pay a fee to the Legal Services Committee. The final orders discard the lower court’s judgment.

Table of Content
1. revision petition challenges conviction under the negotiable instruments act. (Para 1)
2. court acknowledges out-of-court settlement leading to acquittal. (Para 2)

1. This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 590/2004 of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. He was the accused in S. T. No. 129/2004 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode (Marad Cases), which was filed u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N. I. Act for short). The learned Magistrate convicted him u/s.138 of the N. I. Act and sentenced to imprisonment for three months and pay ` 50,000/- as compensation u/s.357(3) Cr.PC. Against that, he preferred the above Criminal Appeal before Sessions Court, Kozhikode where the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and confirmed the compensation u/s.357(3) Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred this revision petition.

2. When the case came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent submitted that the parties have settled the matter out of Court through the intervention of mediators. Both parties have filed Crl. M. A. No. 5603/2016. According to S.147 N. I. Act, notwithstanding anything maintained in Cr.PC, 1973, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. S.320(6) of Cr.P.C empowers the High Court to compound any offence in exercise of its revisional power against such person, who is competent to compound the offence. When offence is compounded, accused is entitled to get an acquittal under S.320(8) Cr.P.C. In view of the compromise, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court under S.138 of the N. I. Act is set aside. Revision petitioner / accused is acquitted and set at liberty. In view of the decision of Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babulal, 2010 (2) KHC 428 : AIR 2010 SC 1907 : 2010 (2) KLT 587 : ILR 2010 (2) Ker. 577 : 2010 (5) SCC 663 : 2010 (4) SCALE 568 : 2010 CriLJ 2860 : 2011 (1) Mah LJ 357 : 2010 (2) SCC (Cri) 1328 : 2010 (2) SCC (Civ) 520 : 2010 (159) Comp Cas 1 : 2010 (90) AIC 86 revision petitioner / accused has to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- to the High Court Legal Service Committee and produce the receipt of payment thereof.

Revision petition is disposed of as above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 84861

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALADr. , JJaith Kumar v. Sarada and AnotherCrl. Revision Petition | Crl. Appeal No. 590/2004 | S. T. No. 129/2004

The court establishes that offenses under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded, leading to acquittal when parties reach a compromise.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Dr. , J
Jaith Kumar v. Sarada and Another
Crl. Revision Petition | Crl. Appeal No. 590/2004 | S. T. No. 129/2004