C. Nagaraj Vs. A. Sathyanarayana
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No…..of 2000)
C.C. (Crl.) No. 1236/2000
Petitioner: C. Nagaraj
Respondent: A. Sathyanarayana
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No…..of 2000)
C.C. (Crl.) No. 1236/2000
Judges: Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI, R.C. LAHOTI & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jun 03, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 138 – Bouncing of Cheque – Lower Court convicting the Appellant for offence under Section 138 Accused approaching High Court – Hearing having been completed and orders passed in open Court judgment to be signed by the Single Judge – Parties compromising in the meantime and joint memo of settlement submit-ted before the Court – Single Judge declining to take note of joint memo of settlement – Conviction of the accused up
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 138 – Bouncing of Cheque – Lower Court convicting the Appellant for offence under Section 138 Accused approaching High Court – Hearing having been completed and orders passed in open Court judgment to be signed by the Single Judge – Parties compromising in the meantime and joint memo of settlement submit-ted before the Court – Single Judge declining to take note of joint memo of settlement – Conviction of the accused up
Held:
Whether correct. Held : Yes As the view taken by Single Judge is unexceptionable. However period of sentence reduced in view of the total amount due having been paid by the accused. Conviction upheld.
HELD –
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This case revolves around the conviction of the Appellant recorded by the Courts below for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears that while the judg-ment was under signatures of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the parties compromised the matter and submitted a joint memo of settlement. The learned Single Judge, however, declined to take notice of the same on the ground that the order had been dictated in open Court and he could not review it. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable.
3. In this Court also, a compromise deed has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on caveat, submits that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that the entire amount which was due to the respondent has since been received by him. Learned counsel for the parties submits that the factum of compromise be taken on record and appropriate orders made.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances, as noticed above, while maintaining the conviction of the Appellant, as recorded by the courts below, we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by him and set aside the imposition of fine because of the payment having been made to the respondent. This appeal is accordingly disposed of .
1. Leave granted.
2. This case revolves around the conviction of the Appellant recorded by the Courts below for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears that while the judg-ment was under signatures of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the parties compromised the matter and submitted a joint memo of settlement. The learned Single Judge, however, declined to take notice of the same on the ground that the order had been dictated in open Court and he could not review it. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable.
3. In this Court also, a compromise deed has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on caveat, submits that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that the entire amount which was due to the respondent has since been received by him. Learned counsel for the parties submits that the factum of compromise be taken on record and appropriate orders made.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances, as noticed above, while maintaining the conviction of the Appellant, as recorded by the courts below, we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by him and set aside the imposition of fine because of the payment having been made to the respondent. This appeal is accordingly disposed of .
