M. VIRUPAKSHA Vs. P. K. DASAPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgement dtd. 29/11/2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District in STC No.26288 of 2010 and the judgement of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam dtd. 10/8/2019 in C.A.No.392 of 2019 in and by which the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sec. 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a sum of Rs.36,00,000.00 (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs only) as compensation to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) When the revision was pending both parties compromised the matter and filed a joint compromise memo dtd. 10/10/2019 along with Crl.M.P.No.14897 of 2019 to compound the offence. The joint memo of compromise entered into between the parties inter alia mentions as if the entire cheque amount is being paid. But, however, even before the application could come up for hearing, it was mentioned by both sides that the parties had actually agreed only for a sum of Rs.25,00,000.00 as full quit and out of the said sum a sum of Rs.25,00,000.00 , a sum of Rs.13,00,000.00 had already been paid by the petitioner/accused to the respondent/complainant. In view of the above, the joint compromise memo was not acted upon and the miscellaneous petition was not ordered and the same was kept pending. However, based on the joint compromise memo, the petitioner has been praying for further time to settle the balance amount and therefore, vide repeated orders, this court had been extending the time for payment of balance sum of Rs.12,00,000.00 Finally, apart from the joint compromise memo, an affidavit dtd. 25/1/2022 was filed by the petitioner/accused undertaking to pay the balance agreed amount of Rs.12,00,000.00 together with interest of Rs.1,00,000.00 in all totalling to Rs.13,00,000.00 on or before 28/2/2022 towards fully and final settlement. The said affidavit was taken on file and has been recorded by this court.

(3.) However, today, when the matter came up for hearing today before this court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed the affidavit genuinely thinking that he will be able to muster the amount within the time. But, however, he is unable to arrange the balance amount and to pay to the respondent/complaint even though he genuinely undertook to pay the balance amount.