R.Raju vs K.Sivaswamy

R.RAJU ... APPELLANT

VERSUS

K. SIVASWAMY ... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

Leave granted.

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.

: 2 :

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.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI;

31ST OCTOBER, 2011