P.D Rajan, J.:— This revision petition has been preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl. A. 107 of 2002 of additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc I, Pathanamthitta. He was accused in C.C No. 346 of 1999 Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta which was filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘N.I Act’). Learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 138 of N.I Act and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. Against that, he preferred the above appeal where the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence. Being aggrieved by that, accused preferred this revision petition.
2. When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the parties had settled the matter for a total sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-. He filed Crl. M.A 7251 of 2016 under Section 147 of N.I Act. When parties settle the matter by mutual agreement, there is no harm in allowing the compromise petition. According to Section 147 of the N.I Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, every offence punishable under this section shall be compoundable. According to Section 320(6), High Court while in exercise of its powers of revision may allow any person to compound any offence. When composition of an offence is made, it shall have the effect of an acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr. P.C
3. In the result, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court under Section 138 of N.I Act are set aside. Accused is acquitted and set at liberty. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babulal ((2010) 5 SCC 663 : AIR 2010 SC 1907), the revision petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 500/- to the High Court Legal Service Committee.
4. Revision petition is disposed of as above.
Comments