- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajendra Singh v. State Of Jharkhand And Anr.
Factual and Procedural Background
This revision application challenges the judgment dated 19-6-2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-III, Jamshedpur, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was convicted for issuing a cheque of Rs. 18,200/- on 25-4-2006 against a family loan, which was dishonored leading to a complaint registered as C-1 Case No. 755/2006. The Trial Court sentenced the petitioner to one month simple imprisonment and ordered repayment of the cheque amount. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court, and this revision challenges that dismissal. Subsequently, the petitioner and the complainant have reportedly compromised the matter outside court, supported by an affidavit signed by both parties. The complainant has not appeared despite notice and newspaper publication.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded under Section 147 of the Act based on the compromise between the parties.
- Whether the affidavit of compromise filed by the petitioner and the absence of the complainant justify setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner has already paid the cheque amount to the complainant.
- The parties have compromised the case outside the Court, as evidenced by a joint affidavit.
- The complainant’s non-appearance despite notice and newspaper publication indicates no interest in pursuing the matter.
- The compromise should be accepted, and the conviction and sentence set aside.
Respondent State’s Arguments
- The complainant has not appeared in Court.
- The affidavit of compromise filed in the complainant’s absence cannot be accepted by the Court.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the lower Court records and compared the complainant’s signatures on the affidavit and the original complaint, finding them prima facie identical. Given the complainant’s failure to appear despite notice and newspaper publication, the Court was inclined to accept the affidavit of compromise. The Court found that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be compounded under Section 147 on the basis of the compromise between the parties. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and acquitted the petitioner on the basis of compounding of the offence.
Holding and Implications
The criminal revision is allowed.
The judgments of conviction and sentence dated 22-8-2007 and 19-6-2010 are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted on the basis of the compromise and compounding of the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner, who was on bail, is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. No new precedent is established; the decision directly affects the parties by ending the prosecution through acceptance of the compromise.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the respondent State. The O.R No. 2 has not appeared in spite of notice. Also perused the record called for in this case.
2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 19-6-2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-III, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 201 of 2007, whereby the judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld by the Appellate Court. It may be pointed out that O.R No. 2 complainant had filed a complaint petition against this petitioner stating therein that against some family loan, the petitioner had given a cheque of Rs. 18,200/- to the complainant on 25-4-2006 which was deposited in the Bank and upon the cheque getting dishonored, the complaint was filed in the Court below, which was registered as C-1 Case No. 755/2006.
3. The Trial Court after adjudication of the matter, vide judgment dated 22-8-2007 held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act and upon hearing on the point of sentence, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay Rs. 18,200/- to the complainant within one month.
4. The said judgment was challenged by the petitioner in the Appellate Court below and the Appellate Court also, by the impugned judgment, has upheld the judgment and Order passed against the petitioner, which has been challenged in the present criminal revision.
5. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already given the amount to the complainant and after accepting the amount, the complainant and the petitioner have compromised the case outside the Court. In this connection, an affidavit has been brought on record, as Annexure-1 series, which has been signed by the petitioner as also the O.P No. 2 complainant.
6. However, it appears from the records that the notices issued to the O.P No. 2 were returned unserved, whereupon, newspaper publication of the notice has been made, but the said O.P has not appeared in spite of the newspaper publication of the notice.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case has since been compromised between the parties and since the complainant has no interest in the matter, he has not appeared in spite of the notice published in the newspaper. It has accordingly, been submitted that the compromise arrived at between the parties be accepted.
8. Learned A.P.P appearing for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the complainant has not yet appeared and in absence of the complainant, the affidavit of compromise has been filed, which cannot be accepted by this Court.
9. I have gone through lower Court records. Upon comparing the signatures of the complainant on the affidavit, which are at Annexure-1 series, and on the complaint petition available in the lower Court records, both of them prima facie appear to be of the same person.
10. In view of the fact that the complain ant has not appeared in spite of publication of notice in the newspaper, I am inclined to accept the affidavit of compromise brought on record by the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the offence is allowed to be compounded under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of com promise and the judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 22-8-2007 passed by learned Trial Court in C-I Case No. 755/2006, Tr. No. 826/2007, as also the judgment dated 19-6-2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-III, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 201 of 2007 are, hereby, set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the accusation on the basis of compounding of the offence. The petitioner is on bail and he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. This criminal revision is, accordingly, allowed.
12. Application allowed.
Alert