R.RAJU Vs. K.
O R D E R
This appeal is directed
against the Judgment and Order dated 23rd March, 2011 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision Case No.1433 of 2007. By the impugned
Jugement and Order, the High Court has confirmed the Judgment and Order dated
13th August, 2007 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court
No. 2, Coimbatore, which had confirmed the Judgment and Sentence of the Learned
Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Pollachi, dated 21.11.2006 in C.C.No. 202 of 2004, whereby
the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act") and sentenced to undergo one year
simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for three months.
During the pendency of
this appeal, the appellant had entered into a compromise with the complainant
and the complainant has appeared through the learned counsel, who stated that
the entire money has been received by the complainant and, therefore, he has no
objection if the conviction already recorded under Section 138 of the Act is
set aside. Since the parties have arrived at a settlement and prayed for the
compounding of the offence as contemplated by Section 147 of the Act, it is not
necessary for us to notice the facts leading up to institution of proceedings
before this Court.
Since the parties have
settled their disputes, we allow the parties to compound the offence, set aside
the Judgment of the Courts below and acquit the appellant of the charges
against him. In our opinion, since the appellant has wasted the public time, while
setting aside the aforesaid orders, the appellant should be burdened with exemplary
costs, which we quantify at Rs.50,000/- which shall be deposited by the
appellant before the National Legal Services Authority within three weeks from today.
In case, the appellant
defaults in depositing the amount, as ordered by us, the National Legal
Services Authority is at liberty to move this Court for appropriate orders. The
appeal is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)