Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1039 (KAR)

H. R. Venkatarama Reddy v. V. Bise Gowda

2017-07-13

K.S.MUDAGAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Both the counsel and respondent are present. The respondent is duly identified by his counsel. 2. Sri. C.P. Praveen, Advocate for respondent files application under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act for compounding the offence. 3. It is submitted that the revision petitioner/accused is serving sentence in the Central Prison, Bengaluru in pursuance of the conviction warrant issued by the trial Court in the present case. Therefore, he seeks exemption for the presence of the revision petitioner/ accused to compound the offence. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) which was deposited before the trial Court in full settlement of his claim. He seeks permission to compound the offence. 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in TGN Kumar vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2011 SC 708 referring to its earlier judgment in Basavaraj R. Patil and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3214 has held that the trial Court, can exercise discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of the accused for his examination in terms of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. keeping in view the following parameters: (i) Where his narration of facts satisfy the Court of his real difficulties to be physically present in Court for giving such answer; (ii) Where there is an assurance that no prejudice would be caused to him, in any manner, by dispensing with his personal presence during such questioning; (iii) Where he undertakes that he would not raise any grievance on that score at any stage of the case. 6. The High Court of Kerala in Y.P. Baiju vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2008 Cri. L.J. 928 has held in para No. 21 is as follows: 21. I shall now attempt to narrate my conclusions. They are: (1) Composition under Section 320, Cr.P.C. is a unilateral act. (2) The victim (person shown in column of 3 of S.320(1) and 320(2)) can himself make an application for composition. (3) It is not necessary for the Court to insist on a joint application for composition. The victim can of course make a joint application along with the accused. (2) The victim (person shown in column of 3 of S.320(1) and 320(2)) can himself make an application for composition. (3) It is not necessary for the Court to insist on a joint application for composition. The victim can of course make a joint application along with the accused. (4) It is not necessary for the Court to insist on the personal appearance of the accused before the Court to consider an application for composition under Section 320, Cr.P.C. (5) The mere fact that the Court has already issued a non-bailable warrant against the accused and that is pending is no reason for the Court not to proceed further with the case. All steps for which personal presence of the accused is not necessary can be continued even if the non-bailable warrant remains unexecuted and the accused has not personally appeared. 7. In view of the submissions above, this Court is satisfied that the revision petitioner/accused is not able to appear before the Court due to his imprisonment in this case itself. Having regard to that and the aforesaid judgments, the respondent is permitted to compound the offence. 8. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. Fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) shall be refunded to the accused/petitioner. The revision petitioner/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. 9. In view of the above, I.A. Nos. 1/2017, 2/2017 and 3/2017 are allowed, accordingly. 10. Office to communicate the order to the jail authorities, forthwith.