Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 195 (AP)

O. Venkatanarayana v. Polinati Venkateswara Rao

2019-08-20

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2019
JUDGMENT : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. The complainant-respondent is present and identified by his counsel Mrs. S. Samantha. The revisional petitioner is in jail. He is represented by his counsel Sri S.R. Sanku. 2. The complainant filed C.C. No. 26 of 2016 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol, West Godavari District, under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "N.I Act") on the allegation that cheque for Rs. 5,60,000/- dated 19.09.2015 issued by the accused towards part payment of the pronote debt was bounced back. The accused contested the matter. The trial Court by its judgment dated 31.01.2017 convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of ninety days. 3. Aggrieved, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal "No. 56/2017 before the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narsapur, and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 08.08.2019 by confirming the judgment dated 31.01.2017 passed by the trial Court. Against the same, the accused preferred the instant Crl. R.C. No. 891 of 2019. 4. When the matter is pending, the respondents-complainants filed I.A. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2019 under Section 320 Cr.P.C., submitting that they have entered into compromise and propose to compound the offence and therefore, the Criminal Revision Case may be allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court may be set aside by acquitting the accused. In the compounding petition it is submitted that the accused paid Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compromise. 5. During the course of enquiry when questioned, the complainant admitted that he received Rs. 2,00,000/- from the accused and submitted that he has no objection for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. As per Section 147 of the N.I Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. As such there can be no demur that the instant offence is compoundable. As per Section 147 of the N.I Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. As such there can be no demur that the instant offence is compoundable. Now coming to the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, in Damadar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 (3) ALT (Crl.) 151 (SC) : (2010) 5 SCC 663 if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs. Therefore, as per the said guideline, the petitioner/accused in this case is liable to pay Rs. 84,000/- (cheque amount is Rs. 5,60,000/-). However, in the said decision, the Apex Court has observed thus: "Para 25: x x x x.... Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the proceedings to their logical end." Having regard to the relaxation clause mentioned in the said judgment, the Court can reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case. In the instant case, it is submitted on behalf of the accused that he is a petty vendor of coconuts and with much difficulty eking out his livelihood and therefore, lenience may be shown in imposition of costs. 6. Having regard to the above submission, this Court is of the considered view that instead of imposing 15%, 10% of the cheque amount can be imposed by way of costs and accordingly, directed the petitioner/accused to deposit the said amount with the High Court Legal Services Committee. The petitioner deposited Rs. 56,000/- with the High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravathi vide Receipt No. 2611 dated 20.08.2019 and produced before this Court. 7. In that view, I.A. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2019 are allowed and the parties are permitted to compound the offence. Consequently, the Crl. The petitioner deposited Rs. 56,000/- with the High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravathi vide Receipt No. 2611 dated 20.08.2019 and produced before this Court. 7. In that view, I.A. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2019 are allowed and the parties are permitted to compound the offence. Consequently, the Crl. R.C. No. 891 of 2019 is also allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court are set aside and the petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offence. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.