Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 260 (UTT)

Mehandi Hassan v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-06-21

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Accused-revisionist was convicted under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month along with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- vide order dated 07.02.2015 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Aggrieved against the same, the convict preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2015, which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udha Singh Nagar, vide order dated 10.05.2016. The order dated 07.02.2015 passed by learned Trial Court was affirmed. In other words, the conviction and sentence awarded to the convict was upheld. Still aggrieved against the same, present Criminal Revision is preferred by the convict-revisionist. 2. A Compounding Application being CRMA No. 897 of 2016 has been filed on behalf of the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. Compounding application is supported by the affidavits of the revisionist and complainant. Complainant Saddam Hussain is present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Bhuwan Cahndra Bhatt, Advocate. He says that he is in receipt of the sum due, which has been paid by the revisionist to him. He also says that he is not interested in prosecuting the revisionist. All that he prays is that, since a compounding has taken place between him and the revisionist, therefore, the order directing conviction and sentence to the revisionist be set aside. Revisionist Mehandi Hasan is also present in person duly identified by his counsel Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate. The revisionist affirms in the open Court what is stated by the complainant Saddam Hussain. 3. The accused-revisionist says that he is ready to deposit 15 % the cheque amount in the account of Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority within four weeks, as per the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., AIR 2010 SC 1907 . 4. The question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the complainant should be permitted to compound the offence proved against the revisionist or not? If so, on what terms? Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, says that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. 5. If so, on what terms? Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, says that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. 5. Hon’ble Apex Court has held in G. Sivarajan vs. Little Flower Kuries & Enterprises Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 400 , that when the claim is settled and the complainant says that he has no objection to compound the matter, the compounding should be permitted. It was also held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar Haritwal vs. Alka Gupta, (2004) 11 SCC 400 , that where dispute is settled between the parties, the conviction and sentence of the defaulter should be set aside in view of the fact that Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 permits compounding of the offence. 6. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the complainant (respondent herein) should be permitted to compound the offence against the revisionist. Compounding Application No. 897 of 2016 is accordingly allowed. As a consequence thereof, the Criminal Revision is allowed, subject to deposition of 15% of the cheque amount with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority within a month. The Judgment and order are hereby set aside. Conviction and sentence awarded to the convict-revisionist is also set aside, subject to the aforesaid condition. He is acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The revisionist is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender. 7. Let a copy of this order along with Lower Court Records be sent to the Court below for compliance.