Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 842 (RAJ)

Mohammed Abdul Raouf v. State of Rajasthan

2006-03-10

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.- This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code hereinafter) is directed against the Judgment and order dated 19.01.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Merta (for short the appellate Court hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2004 whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Judgment and order dated 31.01.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Merta City (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 29/2001 by which the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short the Act hereinafter). The complainant non-petitioner Sanjeev Choudhary appeared before this Court and filed an application seeking permission to compound the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act as also compromise stating therein that the complainant-non-petitioner has compounded the offence with the petitioner. The compromise has been verified by the Deputy Registrar, Judicial today. The complainant has been identified by his Counsel Mr. I.R. Choudhary. In the application compounding the offence it has been stated that a sum of Rs. 5000/-has been deposited by the petitioner in the instant case in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Merta City on 14.02.2006 and a sum of Rs. 40,000/-has been paid to the complainant by the petitioner in cash. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 45,000/-is said to have been paid by the petitioner to the complainant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Rs. 5000/-deposited by the petitioner vide Book No. 047105 Receipt No. 0017 may be paid to the non-petitioner. 2. The offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is compoundable under Section 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. 3. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code hereinafter) provides compounding of offence. 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 under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section. The complainant-non-petitioner is permitted to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The complainant-non-petitioner is permitted to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The effect of composition of the offence as envisaged under Sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Code is that it shall have an effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. In the instant case, the complainant-non-petitioner is competent to compound the offence and has compounded the offence. 4. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 19.01.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Merta in Criminal Appeal No. 05/04 as also the order dated 31.01.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Merta City are hereby set aside. Petitioner Mohammed Abdul Raouf S/o Sarajuddin, b/c Musalman, R/o Near Moyal Dharam Kanta, Merta City, district Nagaur is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 being compounded by the complainant-non-petitioner No. 1. The petitioner is in jail. He be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. The Judicial Magistrate, Merta City is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 5000/-deposited by the petitioner before it on 14.02.2006 to complainant-non-petitioner Sanjeev Choudhary S/o Bhanwar Singh. The application seeking suspension of sentence stands disposed of .