Hansraj vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Mayank Shukla, appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and the learned AGA.

The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6.1.2007 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution), Lucknow convicting the revisionist u/s 138 N.R. Act and sentencing him for one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1,40,000/- as compensation to be paid within three months and in default of payment of compensation additional 1 and 1/2 months further simple imprisonment. Aggrieved with the said order an appeal was preferred which too was dismissed and upheld the judgment and order passed by the trial below.

Submission of Learned Counsel for the revisionist is that opposite party No. 2 which is a Bank, has advanced the amount to the revisionist and now a compromise has been entered between the parties and the revisionist during the pendency of the appeal paid Rs. 72499/- to the Bank-O.P. No. 2 which is admitted by the counsel for the Bank. His further submission is that rest of the amount has been deposited in the trial court but the said amount could not be released by the trial court on account of the fact that the revision is pending against the conviction of the revisionist in this Court. He, therefore, prays that the revision may be decided in terms of the compromise so that the amount deposited in the trial court may be withdrawn by the opposite party No. 2-Bank.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed and Anr. LXVIII 2010 ACC 345 and has submitted that even after conviction if the parties have entered into compromise then taking the provisions of

Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act into consideration, the revision can be decided in terms of the compromise. To substantiate his arguments he has placed reliance upon para 12 of the judgment, which is quoted as under:

It is true that the application u/s 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence u/s 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, we find no reason to reject the application u/s 147 of the aforesaid Act even in a proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The aforesaid preposition of law laid down by the Apex Court goes to indicate that compromise is permissible even after the revisional stage or thereafter if the parties are readily agreeable for accepting the amount and by passing the conviction which has been rendered against the revisionist.

There is no dispute that the parties have entered into compromise, therefore, this revision is disposed of finally in terms of the compromise and the judgment and conviction dated 6.1.2007 is set aside and the opposite party No. 2 is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the revisionist before the trial court.