VINEET KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act. He preferred an appeal which was pending before the respondent no. 2. During the pendency of appeal, the parties namely the complainant and the accused entered into a compromise. The compromise was filed in the appellate Court. The Appellate Court, under its order dated 6. 11. 1996, refused to record this compromise on the ground that there is no provision either in the Negotiable instruments Act or in the Criminal Procedure Code permitting compounding of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Appellate Court casually referred the pronouncement of Andhra Pradesh High court on this point by saying that the said authority is not binding on him. The instant writ petition has been preferred against this order dated 6. 11. 1996 of the appellate Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A. G. A. have been heard. None appeared for the respondent No. 3 even in the revised list.

(2.) SECTION 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not contain any provision permitting the parties to compound the offence punishable under this section. It is undisputed that Negotiable Instruments Act is special enactment other than the Indian Penal Code. Such offence is not contemplated under Indian Penal Code.

(3.) A comparative study of the Code of Criminal Procedure before amendment and after amendment will indicate that there is no absolute prohibition to permit compounding the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the old Code of Criminal Procedure in Schedule-II, 8 columns were in existence. It is also provided whether offences are compoundable or not. In the last part of the schedule offences under other laws were also indicated and in column 6 it was provided that all such offences are not compoundable.