Madras High Court
B.Sampath Kumaran vs M/S.Sree Enterprise on 22 September, 2014
Author: P.R.Shivakumar
Bench: P.R.Shivakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Criminal Revision Case (MD)No.34 of 2008 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 B.Sampath Kumaran ... Petitioner Vs. M/s.Sree Enterprise, represented by its Partner K.B.Kanagaraj, S/o.Balasubramani, Having business office at No.326 (895) Jawahar Bazaar, 1st Floor, Karur 639 001. ... Respondent Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.390 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur and to set aside the judgment dated 17.04.2007 passed in C.c.No.390 of 2005 by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur in C.A.No.26 of 2007 on 23.10.2007 and allow this revision. !For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Madasamy ^For Respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan :ORDER
The Criminal Revision Case arises out of a judgment of conviction pronounced by the trial Court namely, the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur in C.C.No.390 of 2005 convicting the revision petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On appeal in C.A.No.26 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, the lower Appellate Judge confirmed the conviction and also the sentence imposed by the trial Court. As against the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred.
2.Pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case, the parties have effected a settlement. The revision petitioner has paid Rs.10,00,000/- towards the full satisfaction of the claim of the respondent on the basis of the dishonoured cheque. The respondent has also received the same and expressed full satisfaction besides consenting for compounding the offence. The parties are also present along with their respective counsel. They have filed a petition in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 for recording composition.
3.Though there are judgments to the effect that when the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought to be compounded in the appellate stage or in the revisional stage, more amount is to be fixed as the compounding fee. Since it is brought to the notice of the Court that there was dispute between the parties regarding the actual liability between the parties, the amount now agreed and paid will take care of the same and hence, this Court does not deem it fit to load the compounding cost with any further amount.
4.Accordingly, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 is allowed. The Criminal Revision Case shall stand disposed of recording the composition which will have the effect of nullifying the order of conviction passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court and the revision petitioner shall stand acquitted of the offence for which he was prosecuted, namely the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
22.09.2014 Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no sms P.R.SHIVAKUMAR,J sms To 1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Karur 2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur Criminal Revision Case (MD)No.34 of 2008 22.09.2014