Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 930 (MAD)

Surendera Babu v. N. M. Ahemed Haji

2015-02-16

M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2015
Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal against acquittal of the respondent/accused in C.C.No.143 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate NoI, Karur, wherein the appellant/complainant seeks to prosecute the respondent/accused for the commission of the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. According to the appellant/complainant, towards purchase of cotton handloom textile goods on credit basis, the respondent/accused was due and payable a sum of Rs.56,434/-and in order to discharge a portion of the liability, he has issued a cheque bearing No.0269419, dated 15.06.2000 drawn on State Bank of Tiruvancore, Hosdurg (Kanhangad) Branch and the said cheque, on presentation, got dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and thereafter, it was represented and once again, it got dishonoured with an endorsement 'Exceeds Arrangement'. The appellant/complainant issued a statutory notice, for which, the respondent/accused has also sent a reply notice and since he has not chosen to pay back the amount due and payable under the impugned cheque, the appellant/complainant came forward to file the complaint. 3. When the complaint was called on 22.12.2003, the Trial Court noted, to secure the presence of the respondent/accused, non-bailable warrant was issued on 25.11.2002 and it remain unexecuted for a period of one year and taking into consideration of the fact that the appellant/complainant did not evince any interest to execute the non- bailable warrant, so as to secure the custody of the respondent/accused, has dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the appellant/complainant has filed this appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant would submit that during the pendency of this appeal, a compromise has been reached, wherein the respondent/accused has issued a demand draft bearing No.298995 for a sum of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) and the appellant/complainant has also accepted the same and the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and prays for appropriate orders. 5. The Court heard the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused also. 6. In the light of the settlement of dues due and payable under the cheque, this Court is of the view that the offence has been compounded, in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 5. The Court heard the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused also. 6. In the light of the settlement of dues due and payable under the cheque, this Court is of the view that the offence has been compounded, in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. As per Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the compounding of offence would have the effect of acquittal. 7. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of, in terms of the above said compromise and the respondent/accused is acquitted.