Issue
Facts
Reasoning
Decision
Sailesh Shyam Parsekar
v.
Baban @ Vishwanath S. Godge & Another
(Supreme Court Of India)
Criminal Appeal No. 416 Of 2005 | 14-03-2005
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant herein was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 39,000/-; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. On appeal being preferred the Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Thereafter, when the matter was taken to the High Court of Bombay, the criminal revision application was dismissed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
4. A joint petition of compromise has been filed by the parties in which it has been stated that they have settled their dispute and grievances. In view of the facts stated in the compromise petition, we permit the parties to compound the offence.
5. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside in view of the compromise and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant, who is on bail, shall be discharged from the liability of bail bonds.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant herein was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 39,000/-; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. On appeal being preferred the Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Thereafter, when the matter was taken to the High Court of Bombay, the criminal revision application was dismissed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
4. A joint petition of compromise has been filed by the parties in which it has been stated that they have settled their dispute and grievances. In view of the facts stated in the compromise petition, we permit the parties to compound the offence.
5. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside in view of the compromise and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant, who is on bail, shall be discharged from the liability of bail bonds.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties ------
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. AGRAWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
Eq Citation
2005 (3) KCCR 1966 (SC)
2005 (2) OLR 430
(2005) 4 SCC 162
2005 (2) ALD (CRL) 25
2006 (4) RCR (CRIMINAL) 841
AIR 2005 SCW 3358
2005 (2) BOMCR (CRI) 40
2005 (3) CIVILCC 726
2005 (4) CRIMINALCC 513
2005 CRILJ 4878
(2005) SCC (CRI) 1321
2005 (2) WLC 465
LQ/SC/2005/360
HeadNote
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — S. 138 — Conviction under — Compromise petition filed by parties — Parties permitted to compound offence — Appellant acquitted of charge — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S. 138
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
