High Court Bench allowed compoundable offence under N.I. Act and acquitted accused upon payment of graded cost of Rs. 21,000 within stipulated time.
Petitioner permitted to compound offence; convicted sentence set aside upon deposit of graded cost Rs. 21,000 by 10-02-2021.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1206 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
Sri. C. Ramakrishnaiah, S/o. Late Chikkahanumaiah, aged about 54 years Residing at No.213, 6th Cross, 1st Main, West of Chord Road, Shivanagara, Bangalore.
.. Petitioner
(By Sri. Gireesha J.T. for Sri. Premkumar and Associates)
AND:
Sri. K.P. Bylappa S/o. late Puttegowda, Assistance Teacher R/at Karepura Village Purushanahalli Post, Doddabelavangala Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk.
.. Respondent
(By Sri.R.V. Anand, Advocate)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment in C.C.No.141/2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Doddaballapura and the judgment dated 31-10-2011 passed by the Additional District and Sessions
Crl.R.P.No.1206/2011
2
Judge, Fast Track Court - VII, Doddaballapur in Criminal Appeal No.4/2011, in the interest of justice and equity.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Hearing, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
The present revision petition has been filed by the accused who was convicted by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C. Doddaballapura (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “Trial Court”) in C.C.No.141/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “N.I. Act”) and was sentenced to pay a fine of `1,70,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.4/2011 in the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VII, Doddaballapura (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “Sessions Judge’s Court”), which by its impugned judgment dated 31-10-2011 dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court.
Crl.R.P.No.1206/2011 3
Aggrieved by the impugned judgments and order on sentence, the accused has preferred the present revision petition.
1,40,000/- from the complainant. Towards the repayment of the said loan amount, on 17-11-2008, the accused issued three cheques for a sum of 60,000/-, 40,000/- and 40,000/respectively in favour of the complainant. When the said cheques were presented for their realisation, all the three cheques came to be dis-honoured with the reason of insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused/drawer. Thereafter, the complainant is said to have issued a legal notice, demanding the cheques' amount. But the accused did not meet the demand made in the legal notice, which constrained the complainant to institute a criminal case against him before the Trial Court.Crl.R.P.No.1206/2011
4
said judgment, a criminal appeal in Criminal Appeal No.4/2011 was filed by the accused, which also came to be dismissed, while confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court.
" The petitioner and Respondent further submits that, aggrieved by both the judgments of Court below the Petitioner preferred this Criminal revision Petition No.141/2011 before this Hon'ble Court, at this stage at the intervention of elders and well-wishers the Petitioner and Respondent agreed for settlement, the petitioner has deposited Rs.42,500/- on 22/03/2011, Rs.25,000/- on 10/01/2012 the petitioner pay remaining amount of Rs.97,500/- before this Hon'ble Court. Hence the Petitioner
Crl.R.P.No.1206/2011
5
and Respondent pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit them to compound the offence and acquit the petitioner in the interest of justice."
submission and pray for allowing the application under consideration as prayed.
Crl.R.P.No.1206/2011 6
imposing graded cost on litigant also to be borne in mind. According to the said Judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu’s Case (supra) , if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding is permitted to be allowed on the common condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of cost. Accordingly, taking into consideration the joint application for compounding, the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu’s case (Supra) and the circumstance of the case on hand, I proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
[i] The joint application filed by both side under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is allowed ;
[ii] The parties to the present petition are permitted to compound the offence, however, subject to the petitioner herein (accused) paying a sum of ` 21,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Only) towards graded cost in the registry of this Court, on or before 10-02-2021 ;
Crl.R.P.No.1206/2011 7
[iii] Subject to the payment of graded cost, the
judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 14-01-2011, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Doddaballapura in C.C.No.141/2009 is set aside and consequently, the judgment dated 31-10-2011 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VII, Doddaballapur, in Criminal Appeal No.4/2011, also stands set aside;
[iv] The petitioner herein who was the accused before the Trial Court is acquitted of the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881;
[v] However, this order of compounding of the offence and acquittal of the petitioner herein would come into operation and would enure to the benefit of the petitioner, only after he deposits the graded cost as ordered above, and in its entirety, on or before 10-02-2021. In case of non-deposit of the said amount in its entirety, today’s order would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner.
Crl.R.P.No.1206/2011
8
Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the Trial Court and also to the Sessions Judge’s Court along with their respective records immediately after 10-02-2021 and recording the payment or not of the graded cost by the petitioner/accused.
Needless to say that, in case of non-payment of graded cost in its entirety, the Trial Court is to proceed further in accordance with law.
Sd/-
BMV*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the parties can be permitted to compound the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Whether graded cost should be imposed on the accused for compounding the offence in revision proceedings.
Whether the conviction and sentence should be set aside subject to payment of graded cost.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal HExplained¶39
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H, AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1907 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
C. Ramakrishnaiah
K.P. Bylappa
H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court