Issue
Facts
Reasoning
Decision
Sayeed Ishaque Memon
v.
Ansari Naseer Ahmed & Another
(Supreme Court Of India)
Criminal Appeal No. 616 Of 2005 | 25-04-2005
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The sole appellant was convicted by two separate orders passed by the Trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. He was further convicted in both the cases under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Against the orders of convictions in both the cases, the appellant preferred appeals which were dismissed and thereafter revisions filed by the appellant before the High Court having failed, the present appeals by way of special leave have been filed.
4. In the present case, both the parties have filed a joint petition for compromise and they have compromised their disputes in both the cases. In our view, compromise is lawful, as such we accord permission to compromise the same.
5. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, convictions and sentences awarded against the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges in both cases in view of the compromise.
2. Leave granted.
3. The sole appellant was convicted by two separate orders passed by the Trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. He was further convicted in both the cases under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Against the orders of convictions in both the cases, the appellant preferred appeals which were dismissed and thereafter revisions filed by the appellant before the High Court having failed, the present appeals by way of special leave have been filed.
4. In the present case, both the parties have filed a joint petition for compromise and they have compromised their disputes in both the cases. In our view, compromise is lawful, as such we accord permission to compromise the same.
5. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, convictions and sentences awarded against the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges in both cases in view of the compromise.
Advocates List
For the Appellant ------ For the Respondents -------
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 (16) CRIMINALCC 562
(2005) 12 SCC 140
2006 (2) OLR (SC) 73
2006 (2) RCR (CRIMINAL) 331
2005 (7) SCALE 68
LQ/SC/2005/548
HeadNote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 320 — Conviction under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and S. 420 IPC — Compromise between parties — Permission to compromise — Dismissal of appeals in view of compromise
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?
