Karnataka High Court

N Ravindra vs K Subramanya on 16 July, 2021

Author: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

                              BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY

   CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.902 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

N. Ravindra
Aged about 45 years
S/o. Late K.V. Narayan
No.14/2651, 26th A Cross
9th Block, Jayanagar
Bangalore - 560 041.
                                                 .. Petitioner
(By Sri. Siddarth B. Muchandi, Advocate)

AND:

K. Subramanya
Aged about 62 years,
S/o. late S. Krishnappa
Residing at No.54/Y
5th Main, 7th Block,
4th Phase B.S.K. III Stage,
Bangalore - 85.
                                              .. Respondent
(By Sri. H.B. Chandrashekar, Advocate)

                                   ****
      This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397
r/w. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call
for the records on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bangalore City, in C.C.No.25024/2007 and further be
pleased to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against
him by judgment and order dated 10-02-2011 and also
confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer,
                                               Crl.R.P.No.902/2011
                                 2


F.T.C.XII, Bangalore City, in Criminal Appeal No.173/2011 dated
20-07-2011 and acquit the petitioner by allowing this Criminal
Revision Petition that for the reasons stated above, in the
interest of justice and equity.

      This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Orders,
through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day,
the Court made the following:

                            ORDER

The present revision petition has been filed by the accused

who was convicted by the Court of the XII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore City (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as "the Trial Court") by its order dated 10-02-2011,

in C.C.No.25024/2007 for the offence punishable under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for

brevity referred to as "the N.I. Act") with fine of `8,10,000/-, in

default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one

year. Out of the said `8,10,000/-, a sum of `8,00,000/- was

ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and the

balance fine amount of a sum of `10,000/- was ordered to be

forfeited to the State.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in

Criminal Appeal No.173/2011 in the Court of the Additional

Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-12,

Bengaluru City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Crl.R.P.No.902/2011

Sessions Judge's Court"), which by its impugned judgment dated

20-07-2011 dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of

conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court.

Aggrieved by the impugned judgments and order on

sentence, the accused has preferred the present revision

petition.

2. Learned counsels from both side have filed an

interlocutory application- I.A.No.1/2021, under Section 320 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 147 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, along with the joint

affidavit of the parties, seeking permission of this Court to

compound the offence and consequently, to set aside the

impugned judgments of conviction and order on sentence.

3. Learned counsels from both side are physically present

in the Court. The petitioner/accused is appearing through video

conference.

4. In both the joint application as well as the joint

affidavit, they have stated that they have settled the matter

amicably and the petitioner/accused has paid the entire amount

to the respondent/complainant, as such, nothing is due from the Crl.R.P.No.902/2011

petitioner to the respondent. With this, they have sought

permission of this Court for compounding the offence and to set

aside the impugned judgments and order on sentence and acquit

the petitioner/accused of the alleged offence punishable under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

5. Learned counsels from both side make their

submissions supporting the joint application and the joint

affidavit of the parties. The petitioner is also present through

video conference.

6. The joint application and the joint affidavit filed by

the parties convinces the Court that, both the parties out of

their free consent and volition and in their best interest have

settled the matter which is further corroborated by the

submissions made by their learned counsels. As such, I am of

the view that on the terms of the said joint application, the

parties be permitted to compound the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act, however, subject to the payment of

the graded cost by the petitioner/accused.

7. Section 147 of the N.I. Act has made every offence

punishable under the N.I. Act as compoundable. As such, there is Crl.R.P.No.902/2011

no bar for the parties in the proceeding to compound the offence.

However, at the same time, the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble

Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H

reported in AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1907 regarding

imposing graded cost on litigant also to be borne in mind.

According to the said Judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu's Case

(supra), if the application for compounding is made before the

Sessions Court or High Court in revision or appeal, such

compounding is permitted to be allowed on the common

condition that the accused pays `15% of the cheque amount by

way of cost.

8. By order dated 24-08-2011, this Court had directed the

petitioner (accused) to deposit `25% of the fine amount within

three weeks from the date of the said order. With the said

condition and subject to executing a personal bond for a sum of

`50,000/-, the order on sentence under challenge was

suspended.

9. In the joint affidavit filed today along with the

application, the deponents have stated that the

petitioner/accused had deposited a sum of `1,00,000/- and he Crl.R.P.No.902/2011

was permitted to deposit the remaining sum of `1,00,000/-

within three weeks vide order dated 19-09-2011. However, it is

not stated in the affidavit, as to whether the remaining amount

of `1,00,000/- is deposited.

10. Learned counsels for the parties appearing today

submit that the remaining amount of `1,00,000/- also has been

deposited in compliance of the order passed by this Court. If

that were to be so, then the grading cost be appropriated in the

said amount. If by any chance, the amount deposited becomes

deficit, then, the remaining amount is payable by the

petitioner/accused within fifteen days from today in the same

Court where in the matter, a sum of `1,00,000/- is already said

to have been deposited.

In the instant case, cheque amount is `8,00,000/- (Rupees

Eight Lakhs Only). Accordingly, taking into consideration the

joint application for compounding, the guidelines given by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (Supra) and

the circumstance of the case on hand, I proceed to pass the

following:-

Crl.R.P.No.902/2011

ORDER

[i] The Joint application - I.A.No.1/2021 filed

by both side under Section 320 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 147 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is allowed;

[ii] The parties to the present petition are

permitted to compound the offence, however, subject

to the petitioner herein (accused) paying a sum of

`1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand

Only) towards graded cost;

[iii] Subject to the payment of graded cost, the

judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated

10-02-2011, passed by the learned XII Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore City, in

C.C.No.25024/2007 is set aside and consequently,

the judgment dated 20-07-2011 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast

Track Court-12, Bengaluru City, in Criminal Appeal

No.173/2011, also stands set aside;

Crl.R.P.No.902/2011

[iv] The petitioner herein - Sri.N. Ravindra,

Aged about 45 years, S/o. late K.V. Narayan,

No.14/2651, 26th A Cross, 9th Block, Jayanagar,

Bangalore - 560 041. who was the accused before

the Trial Court, is acquitted of the alleged offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881;

[v] The amount already deposited by the

petitioner/accused, if any, is in excess of a sum of

`1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand

Only), that excess deposit amount be released to the

petitioner/accused, after his due identification and in

accordance with law, however, only after deducting a

sum of `1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty

Thousand Only), towards graded cost.

[vi] However, this order of compounding of

the offence and acquittal of the petitioner herein

would come into operation and would enure to the

benefit of the petitioner, only after he deposits the

graded cost as ordered above, and in its entirety

within fifteen days from today. In case of non-