M. Cr. C. No. 7348 of 2011. Case: O.T.G. Global Finance Ltd. and Others Vs Mohan Mandelia and Others. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | M. Cr. C. No. 7348 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. S.K. Shrivastava, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. M.K. Choudhary, Advocate and Mr. Mukund Bhardwaj, Public Prosecutor. |
| Judges | G. D. Saxena, J. |
| Issue | Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 147; Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Section 7; Negotiable Instruments (Amendment & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002; Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - ... |
| Citation | 2012 (2) JLJ 25, 2012 (1) MPHT 387, 2012 CriLJ 2008 |
| Judgement Date | January 06, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Order:
G. D. Saxena, J., (At Gwalior)
-
As the grievance raised in the aforesaid two petitions is identical and same, they arc heard together and disposed of by this common order. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from Misc. Cri. Case No. 7348/11.
-
Present petition (Misc. Cri. Case No. 7348/11) is preferred by the petitioners/accused under Section 482 of Cr.PC. having been aggrieved by an order dated 26th September, 2011. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner/accused No. 1. OTC Global Finance Ltd. Company was acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act while setting aside the sentence for the alleged offence. However, the conviction recorded by the Trial Magistrate and affirmed by the Appellate Court against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence alleged was maintained with sentence of imprisonment of one month suffered by them. While summing up, it was also directed in Para 34 of the order impugned which is extracted below:-
(34) Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the fact that the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3 have already suffered the sentence of imprisonment awarded to them under the impugned judgment, in the opinion of this Court, interest of justice would be sub-served if any further substantial punishment is not awarded and same is taken to be sufficient. While holding so, it is directed that now, the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Janak Gandhi Managing Director and S.S. Yadav, Director of Finance of OTG Global Finance Ltd. shall equally be responsible to pay ` 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) instead of ` 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs). The portion of fine amount imposed against them is deleted herewith. The said amount of compensation shall be deposited with the Trial Court within a period of six months. The complainant/accused shall further have liberty to adopt the legal recourses if the law permits them before the Civil Court to settle their disputes regarding the settlement of their liabilities after termination of joint venture companies/partnership of Cable Network at Gwalior. In that case, the amount of compensation shall be adjusted in the amount which may be awarded by the Civil Courts in future. The fine amount, the cash or securities and bank guarantee under direction of this Court/Appellate Court/Trial Court, if deposited/filed before the Trial Court/Registry of this Court, be returned back to the petitioners/accused subject to enforceable law prevailing, or on the request of the parties, may be adjusted in the compensation amount as awarded by this Court.
-
At the time of pronouncement of the verdict, learned Counsel for the parties brought the fact to the notice of the Court that the compromise was arrived at and pursuant to the said compromise, now the complainant/respondent No. 1 does not wish to pursue his complaint any more and seeks quashment of the criminal proceedings vis-a-vis the acquittal of the petitioner/accused. The Interlocutory Applications being Nos. 10466/11 and 10468/1 i were moved for the said purpose, which came to be dismissed by this Court for the reasons mentioned in Paras 35 and 36 of the order itself. Paras 35 and 36 are reproduced below:-
(35) At the time of pronouncement of the order by this Court, learned Counsel appearing for the parties submitted at bar that the matter has been settled between the parties out of the Court and in the light of the compromise so arrived at, now the complainant, respondent No. 1 does not wish to pursue his complaint any more and, therefore, the petitioners be acquitted of the alleged offences. In support of submissions, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K.M. Ibrahm Vs. K.P. Mohammed and Another (2010) 1 SCC 798.
(36) An application for compounding of offence filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. after pronouncement of the judgment in appeal/revision, petition does not lie as the Court has no more seisin over the case. Compounding of offence under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. is permissible only when the case is pending before the Court. In this very case, after pronouncement of the judgment, it was stated that the compromise application has been moved. In the case of State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chancier Agarwala AIR 1979 SC 87, it was held by the Apex Court that once a judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in exercise of its appellate or its revisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against that judgment as there is no provision in the Code, which would enable the High Court to review the same or to exercise revisional jurisdiction. The same situation does arise in this case. Consequently, the applications (LA. Nos. 10466/11 and 10468/11) are not tenable before this Court. Such application is permissible only when the case is pending before the Court and not at the stage when the case is fixed for pronouncement of the judgment by the Court. Consequently, both the applications stand rejected with a liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate recourse in accordance With law.
-
Being aggrieved by the rejection of the applications (I.A. Nos. 10466/11 and 10468/11), the present petitions under Section 482 of Cr.PC.. have been submitted.
-
Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that as per Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, offence under Section 138 of the Act has been made compoundable and for that purpose no...
To continue reading
Request your trial