Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 917 (MAD)

Gnana Pragasam v. Jeeva

2015-02-16

M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2015
Judgment 1. The revision petitioner is the accused and he was convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dindigul, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in C.C.No.229 of 2005, vide judgment dated 05.06.2007. The Trial Court has convicted him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, with the default sentence of 3 months simple imprisonment. The accused, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, preferred an appeal in C.A.No.34 of 2007 and the complainant has also filed Crl.R.P.No.6 of 2010 for enhancement of the sentence. The lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and partly allowed the Criminal Revision Petition by enhancing the sentence of imprisonment from six months to nine months simple imprisonment and in respect of fine amount of Rs.2,000/-, he has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with the default sentence of 3 months simple imprisonment, vide judgment dated 05.04.2010 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused has filed this revision. 2. This Court, while entertaining the criminal revision, has suspended the sentence of imprisonment by directing the revision petitioner/accused to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards compensation to the credit of C.C.No.229 of 2005, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dindigul and it is represented that the said conditional order has also been complied with. 3. Now, the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties would represent that during the pendency of the revision, a compromise has been reached between the petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant, wherein the respondent/complainant has agreed to receive a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) apart from the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifth Thousand only) already deposited to the credit of the Trial Court in all aggregating to a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Ten Thousand only) in full quit towards her dues due and payable under the impugned cheque and the respective learned counsel would further represent that since the matter has been compromised, appropriate orders may be passed. 4. The compromise petition dated 16.02.2015 signed by the parties and counter-signed by the respective learned counsel is taken on record. 4. The compromise petition dated 16.02.2015 signed by the parties and counter-signed by the respective learned counsel is taken on record. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 speaks about the compounding of the offence and as per Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the effect of compounding would have the effect of acquittal of the accused. 5. In the light of the compromise, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court in C.C.No.229 of 2005, dated 05.06.2007, as modified by the lower appellate Court, vide judgment dated 05.04.2010 in C.A.No.34 of 2007, are set aside and the revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent/complainant is also permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) lying to the credit of C.C.No.229 of 2005. Fine amount of Rs.2,000/- paid by the petitioner/accused, at the time of conviction of the Trial Court in C.C.No.229 of 2005, is directed to be refunded to him. The bail bonds executed by him, shall stand terminated.