Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1576 (RAJ)

Bhupendra Kumar v. Rajendra Kumar Bhobaria

2005-05-26

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision u/s. 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.4.2005 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention 'of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the appellate Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2005 whereby the appeal, filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 14.7.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 507/2003 was partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act hereinafter), the appellate Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months simple imprisonment. However, confirmed the order awarding compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- in favour of respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No. 1. Perused the judgment and order impugned and the record of the trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has filed an application seeking compounding of the offence u/s. 138 of the Act. He has also filed a compromise arrived at between the parties wherein it has been stated that good sense prevailed between the parties and parties have compromised the matter. The amount of both the cheques has been paid to the complainant Rajendra Kumar in presence of the Panchayat. By an application, the respondent No. 1 seeks to compound the offence, wherein he has clearly stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties and there is no dispute with regard to the amount of both the cheques since the amount of both the cheques has been received by the respondent-complainant. It has also been stated that if the revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed, the respondent-complainant has no objection. 4. The offence punishable u/s. 138 of the Act is compoundable u/s. 147 of the Act. 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. 5. Section 320 of the Code provides compounding of offence. 4. The offence punishable u/s. 138 of the Act is compoundable u/s. 147 of the Act. 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. 5. Section 320 of the Code 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 is 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 powers of revision u/s. 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this Section. 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. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid provisions of law, the respondent No. 1 is permitted to compound the offence. He has compounded the offence. The revision petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be acquitted. 7. Consequently, the revision petition. is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 13.4.2005 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No. 13/05 as also the order dated 14.7.2004 passed by the trial Court are hereby set aside. Petitioner Bhupendra Kumar S/o Jasram Devarth R/o Village Kishanpura, Dikhnada, Tehsil Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh is acquitted of the offence u/s. 138 of the Act, being compounded by the complainant-respondent No. 1. The petitioner is in jail, he be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.Revision petition allowed. *******