Amandeep Singh vs Harjinder Singh

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The matrix of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, complainant-respondent Harjinder Singh son of Avtar Singh (for brevity "the complainant") has instituted a private complaint against petitioner-convict Amandeep Singh, for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the NI Act") as amended by the Banking, Public, Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 2002 (55 of 2002). The trial Court convicted & sentenced the petitioner-convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of three months u/s. 138 of the NI Act, by virtue of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.1.2011.

Aggrieved thereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner-convict was partly accepted, the impugned order of sentence of trial Court was modified and he was ordered to be released on probation by the appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment dated 9.8.2011.

The petitioner-convict still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present revision petition, to challenge the impugned judgments of conviction & orders of sentence, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC. That is how I am seized of the matter.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant revision petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context.

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that having considered the various judgments in cases 2000 (1) OLR 400 (SC) , Sivasankaran Vs. State of Kerala and Another, , Kishore Kumar v. J.K. Corporation Ltd. (2004) 12 SCC 494, Sailesh Shyam Parsekar Vs. Baban alias Vishwanath S. Godge and Another, , Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., , R. Rajeshwari Vs. H.N. Jagadish, and K.M. Ibrahim Vs. K.P. Mohammed and Another, , the Hon''ble Apex Court has ruled in case Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., that if the accused intends to compound the offence before Sessions Court or High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays the amount of impugned cheque and its 15% by way of costs. Perhaps, keeping in view of ratio of law laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Alok Singh, J.) passed the following order on 17.11.2011:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner/accused is ready to pay total cheque amount along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of cheque as well as to pay cost of Rs. 5000/- in favour of Free Legal Aid Committee of this Court. Learned counsel states that entire cheque amount along with interest shall be deposited in the shape of demand draft favouring the respondent before the trial Court within 15 days from today and shall also deposit cost of Rs. 5000/- with the Free Legal Aid Committee of this Court within 15 days from today.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. He undertakes to file vakalatnama in the Registry during the course of the day.

Let accused/revisionist deposit the total cheque amount along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of cheque with the trial Court in the shape of demand draft favouring the respondent and cost of Rs. 5000/- with the Free Legal Aid Committee of this Court within 15 days from today. If amount is deposited by the accused/revisionist with the trial Court, same shall be released in favour of the respondent immediately.

Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, let accused/revisionist be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, it is made clear that if amount, as undertook by learned counsel for the petitioner, is not deposited within the time, respondent shall be entitled to move application for cancellation of bail.

List on 28.2.2012.

It is not a matter of dispute that petitioner-convict has already deposited the indicated amount of cheque with interest at the rate of 10% per annum in the trial Court in favour of complainant and costs of Rs. 5000/- with the Free Legal Aid Committee.

Sequelly, section 147 of the NI Act postulates that every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. It is now well settled principle of law that once the erring party has made the payment of entire amount, then, he is entitled to compound the offence, as contemplated u/s 147 of the NI Act. This matter is no more res integra and is now well settled.

An identical question came to be decided by the Hon''ble Apex Court in cases K. Subramanian Vs. R. Rajathi rep. by P.O.A. P. Kaliappan ; Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., and by this Court in case Shiv Kumar Vs. Sanjiv Arora, , wherein it was ruled that under such circumstances, the parties should be permitted to compound the indicated offence.

Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that since the petitioner-convict has already deposited the indicated amount, in pursuance of order of this Court, so, the present revision petition deserves to be accepted, in view of ratio of law laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu''s case (supra).

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is hereby accepted and the impugned judgments of conviction and orders of sentence are set aside. Consequently, the petitioner-convict is acquitted of the charge framed against him, in view of compounding of offence as contemplated u/s 147 of NI Act in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Needless to mention that the complainant would be at liberty to withdraw the entire deposited amount from the trial Court as directed by this Court, vide order dated 17.11.2011.