In a criminal revision regarding a cheque dishonour, the High Court set aside the conviction following a compromise. Costs were imposed on the petitioner for the six-year delay in settling the dispute despite knowing about the rights involved.
Conviction and sentence set aside. Petitioner directed to pay Rs.2,000 to AP State Legal Services Authority.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1304 of 2006
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.763 of 2000 dated 29.11.2004 by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate (presently respondent-designated as XI Chief Metropolitan Magistrate), Secunderabad as confirmed in Crl.A.No.343 of 2004 by the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs., & S.Ts., (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad by judgement dated 20.7.2006.
2. Heard.
3. By virtue of the compromise, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.8,36,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs thirty six thousand only) by way of Demand Draft bearing No.010823 dated 29.3.2012 to the complainant who is present before this Court. The complainant is also identified by his counsel. The complainant stated no objection to set aside the conviction and sentence. In view of the fact that offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is compoundable, there is no impediment for recording the compromise. Hence, the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner are set aside. In view of the fact that the petitioner knows fully well
about taking money and he has not taken any steps to get the matter compromised when the matter is pending before the trial court or when the appeal was pending before the appellate court and when the matter was pending before this court for the last six years, he has not evinced any interest to get the matter compromised.
4. In view of the fact that the compromise has been arrived at the stage of revision case, wasting the valuable time of the trial court, appellate court and also prosecution, it is a fit case where the petitioner can be directed to pay some costs to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of four weeks from today. On payment of the said amount of Rs.2,000/- the Criminal Revision Case will be allowed, failing which the revision petitions would be disposed of in accordance with law. Post after four weeks for compliance.
K.C. BHANU,J
03.04.2012.
GK
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1304 of 2006
Date: 03.04.2012
Gk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence should be set aside in light of a compromise in a compoundable offence.
Whether costs should be directed towards the State Legal Services Authority for delay in compromising the matter.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Complainant
K.C. BHANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
