SHIVDAS KISANRAO PORE Vs. DNYANESHWAR NARAYANRAO SHELKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Gilda, the learned Counsel for the applicant, shri Kasat, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Loney, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 2.

(2.) THIS revision application is preferred by the applicant (original accused) and appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1997 pending of the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, challenging the order passed by additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur on 30-11-1999 rejecting permission for compounding the offence.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 had filed Regular Criminal Case No. 158 of 1995 against the applicant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court no. 3, Achalpur, for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, mainly on the ground that a cheque, dated 2-11-1991, for a sum of Rs. 10,500-00, issued by the applicant, was not honoured. The learned Judicial magistrate vide his judgment and order, dated 4-10-1997, convicted the applicant for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000-00, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of thirty days. The applicant, taking exception to this judgment of conviction and sentence, had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1997 before Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur. His appeal came to be admitted and sentence was suspended on conditions. During the pendency of appeal, parties, namely the applicant and the respondent No. 1, came to terms and entered into an agreement by which the applicant paid an amount of Rs. 10,500-00 to the respondent No. 1 in cash and in pursuance of that, a written agreement, dated 29-11-1999, came to be drawn between the parties. It was on the basis of this agreement when the matter was settled between the parties, application (Exh. 14) was filed before the Additional Sessions judge, Achalpur, seeking permission to compound the offence. The learned additional Sessions Judge, by his order, dated 30-11-1999, rejected the application mainly on the ground that the offence was not then compoundable.