Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1133 (RAJ)

Gajraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-13

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Criminal Procedure Code, petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 31.3.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1. Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the Appellate Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2004, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and affirmed the judgment and order dated 10.6.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the Trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 363 of 2001, by which the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act") and sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. Today, complainant-respondent Mahendra Bagdi appeared before this Court and filed a compromise compounding the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act duly signed by him and counsel for the petitioner. Complainant-respondent has been identified by his counsel Shri D.S. Shekhawat. The compromise has been verified by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The complainant is present in the Court and admits composition of the offence and seeks permission for composition of the offence. 3. Section 147 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. 4. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code" hereinafter) provides compounding of offence sub-Section (5) of Section 320 of the Code provides that when the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he has been committed or as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard. Sub-section (6) of Section 320 of the Code provides that a High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound offence which such person is competent to compound under this Section. Sub-section (6) of Section 320 of the Code provides that a High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound offence which such person is competent to compound under this Section. Sub-section (7) of Section 320 of the Code provides that no offence shall be compounded if the accused is, by reason of a previous conviction, liable either to enhanced punishment or to a punishment of a different kind for such offence. Sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Code provides that the composition of an offence under this Section shall have an effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. 5. Thus, sub-section (6) of Section 320 of the Code provides that in exercise of the power of the revision under Section 401, the High Court or the Court of Sessions may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound. In view of Section 147 of the Act and sub-section (6) of Section 320 of the Code, the respondent-complainant is permitted to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In view of compounding of the offence by the respondent-complainant who is competent to compound the offence, the judgment and order of the appellate Court as well as of the Trial Court deserve to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be acquitted. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2004 as also the judgment and order dated 10.6.2004 passed by the Trial Court are hereby set aside. Petitioner Gajraj Singh S/o Shri Than Singh R/o 244, Gandhi Basti, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on compounding of the offence. He is in jail and be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. The application for suspension of sentence stands disposed of.Appeal disposed of. *******