Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 859 (ALL)

Sardar Kulwant Singh v. State of U. P.

2013-03-15

ADITYA NATH MITTAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Aditya Nath Mittal, J. : Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2. 2. Revisionist and opposite party no.2 have filed a joint affidavit today stating that parties have entered into compromise outside the Court and in terms of the compromise Rs.1,10,000/- has been paid by way of bankers cheque dated 10.10.2012 and the remaining amount Rs.43,750/- was deposited in the Court in compliance of the order dated 16.12.2010. It has also been stated that revisionist has no objection for release of the said amount of 25% in favour of the opposite party no.2. 3. Application for compounding under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has also been submitted. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon K.M. Ibrahim Vs. K.P. Mohammad and another, 2010(1) All. JIC-237, in which Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that once a person is allowed to compound a case as provided under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the conviction under Section 138 of the said Act should also be set aside. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has further held that since the parties have settled their dispute in keeping with the spirit of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whether allow the parties to compound the offence, set aside the judgment of the Court below and acquit the appellant of the charges against him. 5. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. 6. Accordingly, the parties are allowed to compound the offences. 7. As stated in the affidavit that a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- has already been paid by way of bankers cheque. There was a dispute of Rs.1,50,000/-. A sum of Rs.43,750/- has also been deposited in Court in compliance of the order dated 16.12.2010. The trial Court had convicted the revisionist for six months rigorous imprisonment and with a fine of Rs.1,75,000/- out of which the complainant was to get Rs.1,55,000/-. 8. Accordingly, in view of K.M. Ibrahim Vs. K.P. Mohammad and another (supra), the parties are allowed to compound the offence. The Judgments of the Court below dated 15.9.2010 and 9.12.2010 are set aside. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. Accordingly, in view of K.M. Ibrahim Vs. K.P. Mohammad and another (supra), the parties are allowed to compound the offence. The Judgments of the Court below dated 15.9.2010 and 9.12.2010 are set aside. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The amount of Rs.43,750/- which was deposited in compliance of the order dated 16.12.2010 is released in favour of opposite party no.2. 9. The revision is disposed of accordingly. 10. Let the lower Court record be sent to the concerned Court.