Criminal Appeal No. 2281 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9263/09 Crl. M.P. 15423/2009). Case: K. M. Ibrahim Vs K.P. Mohammed and Anr.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 2281 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9263/09 Crl. M.P. 15423/2009) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Malavika G. and Nishe Rajen Shonker, Advs. and For Respondents: Roy Abraham, Adv. |
| Judges | Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ. |
| Issue | Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 147; Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) - Sections 320, 320(8), 357(3); Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Section 147; Constitution of India - Articles 136, 142 |
| Citation | 2010 (1) ACR 193 (SC), AIR 2010 SC 276, 2010 (I) BC 36, 2010 (1) BomCR 52, 2010 (1) CompLJ 336 (SC), 2010 CriLJ 525, 2010 (1) CTC 113, 2010 (2) GLR 1049 (SC), JT 2009 (14) SC 651, 2010 (II) MPJR 1 (SC), 2010 MPLJ 630 (SC), 2010 (1) NCC 392, 2009 (14) SCALE 262, 2010 (1) SCC 798, 2009 (15) SCR 1300, 2010 (1) UC 123 |
| Judgement Date | December 02, 2009 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Altamas Kabir, J.
-
Delay condoned.
-
Leave granted.
-
The appellant issued a cheque to the first respondent for an amount of Rs. 95,000/- in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. However, when the cheque was presented by the first respondent to his bank, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds in the account of the appellant. The respondent thereupon issued statutory notice to the appellant within the prescribed time limit informing the appellant about the dishonor of the cheque and calling upon him to pay the amount due. Since the appellant failed to pay the amount in time, the respondent filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasargode. Considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence with which he had been charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,05,000/-. In default of payment of fine, it was ordered that the appellant would undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. If, however, the fine was realized, directions were given that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- should be given to the respondent by way of compensation.
-
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2003. While affirming the conviction, the Appellate Court reduced the sentence to a period of one month and a fine of Rs. 95,000/-. In default of said payment, the appellant was directed to undergo imprisonment for a further period of two months.
-
The said order was challenged before the High Court, which decided the matter in the light of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the revision against which the present appeal has been filed.
-
At the very initial stage of hearing, a question was raised on behalf of the appellant as to whether an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, could be compounded under Section 147 of the said Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C.
-
Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Advocate, contended that since a specific power had been given to the parties to a proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act under Section 147 to compound the offence, there could be no reason as to why the same cannot be permitted even after conviction, which had been affirmed upto the High Court. It was urged that in order to facilitate settlement of disputes, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C.R.R. No. 226 of 2010. Case: Kedarnath Tewari Vs Nirmal Ghosh. High Court of Calcutta (India)
...the Negotiable Instruments Act is a compoundable offence. Furthermore, in the case of K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed and Anr. reported in AIR 2010 SC 276. It has been held by the Apex Court that even at the appellate stage, an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be allow......
-
M. Cr. C. No. 7348 of 2011. Case: O. T. G. Global Finance Ltd. Co. and Ors Vs Mohan Mandelia and Anr. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
...counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex court in the case of K. M. Ibrahim v. K. P. Mohammed and another (2010) 1 SCC 798: (AIR 2010 SC 276). (36) An application for compounding of offence filed under section 320 of Cr. P. C. after pronouncement of the judgment in appeal/revisio......
-
Criminal Appeal No. 963 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6369 of 2007) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 964-966 of 2010 Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6370-6372 of 2007. Case: Damodar S. Prabhu Vs Sayed Babalal H.. Supreme Court (India)
...cases has also been held to be permissible in a recent decision of this Court, reported as K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed & Anr., 2009 (14) SCALE 262, wherein Kabir, J. has noted (at Paras. 11, "11. As far as the non-obstante clause included in Section 147 of the 1881 Act is concerned, t......
-
C.R.R. No. 226 of 2010. Case: Kedarnath Tewari Vs Nirmal Ghosh. High Court of Calcutta (India)
...the Negotiable Instruments Act is a compoundable offence. Furthermore, in the case of K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed and Anr. reported in AIR 2010 SC 276. It has been held by the Apex Court that even at the appellate stage, an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be allow......
-
M. Cr. C. No. 7348 of 2011. Case: O. T. G. Global Finance Ltd. Co. and Ors Vs Mohan Mandelia and Anr. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
...counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex court in the case of K. M. Ibrahim v. K. P. Mohammed and another (2010) 1 SCC 798: (AIR 2010 SC 276). (36) An application for compounding of offence filed under section 320 of Cr. P. C. after pronouncement of the judgment in appeal/revisio......
-
Criminal Appeal No. 963 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6369 of 2007) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 964-966 of 2010 Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6370-6372 of 2007. Case: Damodar S. Prabhu Vs Sayed Babalal H.. Supreme Court (India)
...cases has also been held to be permissible in a recent decision of this Court, reported as K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed & Anr., 2009 (14) SCALE 262, wherein Kabir, J. has noted (at Paras. 11, "11. As far as the non-obstante clause included in Section 147 of the 1881 Act is concerned, t......