BHIM SAIN TANEJA Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is directed against a judgment dated 09.01.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) whereby the Appeal against the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay compensation of Rs. 54 lacs and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 180 days imposed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) in Complaint Case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I. Act) was dismissed.

(2.) During pendency of this Revision Petition, a Criminal Application No. 4/2013 was jointly moved by the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 stating that the matter has been compromised and since the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is compoundable, the Petitioner is entitled to be acquitted.

(3.) While dealing with the compounding of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 5 SCC 663 laid down certain guidelines for imposition of costs payable to the Legal Services Authority. It was stated that if the application for compounding of the offence is made at the first or the second hearing of the case, the compounding may be allowed without imposing any costs on the accused. Thereafter, the costs to be imposed was to vary between 10% to 20% depending upon the stage at which the application for compounding was moved by the accused. Para 21 of the report is extracted hereunder:-