Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Bheeshma v. S.m.sangamesh

Bheeshma v. S.m.sangamesh

(High Court Of Karnataka (circuit Bench At Dharwad))

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100108 OF 2014 | 14-03-2023

1. Shri Sharnappa S.Koliwad, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Shri D.M.Bandi, learned counsel for respondent are present.

2. Heard both counsel on application filed under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as ‘N.I.Act’ for brevity) for compounding the offence.

3. Accused was tried before the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act in CC.No.712/2011 and the trial Court by it’s judgment dated 27.09.2013 has convicted the accused and imposed sentence. The said judgment was assailed before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5011/2013 and the First Appellate Court by it’s judgment dated 28.02.2014, has dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.

4. Revision petitioner-accused and respondentcomplainant are present before the Court. They are identified by their respective counsel. They have filed joint petition under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act seeking permission to compound the offence. It is stated in the petition that accused has deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/- before trial Court and remaining Rs.13,000/- is paid before this Court, which complainant acknowledges the same.

5. Revision petitioner-accused has no objection for the complainant to withdraw the amount of Rs.30,000/- deposited before trial Court. Parties to the revision petition have amicably settled the dispute between them. The compounding of offence can be permitted by the Court in terms of Section 147 of N.I.Act.

6. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal, H, reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907 [LQ/SC/2010/479] , when compounding is permitted at the appellate stage, the cost has to be imposed. It is true that when the matter is compounded at the appellate stage, 15% of the cheque amount will have to be imposed as a cost and the cost so imposed has to be deposited to the Legal Services Authority of this Court.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that if reasonable cost of Rs.2,000/- is imposed, then it will meet ends of justice. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Application filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is hereby allowed.

The parties are permitted to compound the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act subject to the condition that accused depositing Rs.2,000/- as cost to the Legal Services Authority of this Court.

In view of accepting compounding of offence between the parties, the judgment of trial Court and First Appellate Court are set-aside

Learned counsel for revision petitioner has to report the compliance of the order within one week.

In terms of the above, the Criminal Revision Petition is ordered to be disposed of accordingly.

In view of disposal of the Criminal Revision Petition, pending interim applications if any, does not survive for consideration.

Advocate List
  • SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD.

  • SRI. D. M. BANDI.

Bench
  • HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/KarHC/2023/672
Head Note

S. 147 & 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Compounding of offence — Compounding of offence permitted at appellate stage — Cost to be imposed — Reasonable cost of Rs.2,000/- imposed — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Ss. 147 and 138