JIK INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS. versus AMARLAL V. JUMANI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2012] 3 S.C.R. 114 · Decided: 01-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 114 
JIK INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS. 
v. 
AMARLAL V. JUMANI AND ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 263 of 2012) 
FEBRUARY 1, 2012 
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.320- Compounding of offence - Whether sanction of a 
scheme u/s.391 of the Companies Act, 1956 amounts to 
compounding of an offence u/s. 138 read with s. 141 of the N. I. 
Act and whether such sanction has the effect of termination or 
D dismissal of complaint proceedings under N. I. Act - Held: The 
effect of approval of a scheme of compromise and arrangement 
uls.391 of the Companies Act is that it binds the dissenting 
minority, the company as also the liquidator if the company is 
under winding up - A scheme u/s.391 of the Companies Act 
E does not have the effect of creating new debt - The scheme 
simply makes the original debt payable in a manner and to the 
extent provided for in the scheme - The offence under the N.I. 
Act which has already been committed prior to the scheme 
does not get automatically compounded only as a result of the 
F said scheme - There are various features in the compounding 
of an .offence and those features must be satisfied before it can 
be claimed by the offender that the offence has been 
compounded - Compounding of an offence cannot be 
achieved indirectly by sanctioning of a scheme by the 
G Company Court- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- s.138 rl 
w s.141- Companies Act, 1956- s.391. 
s.320 - Compounding of offence - Historical background 
- Discu$sed - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1861 - Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1872 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 
H 
114 
JIK INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS. v. AMARLAL V. 
115 
JUMANI AND ANR. 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 
A 
s. 141 - Mode and manner of compounding offences 
under N. I. Act - Held: Compounding of an offence is statutorily 
provided uls.320, Cr.P.C. - The act of compounding involves 
an element of mutuality and it has to be bilateral and not 
unilateral -Thus, representation of the person compounding 
8 
is essential u/s. 320, Cr. P. C. - s. 4(2), Cr. P. C. deals with 
offences under any other law which include offences under the 
N./. Act - In view of s.4(2), Cr.P.C., the basic procedure of 
compounding an offence laid down in s.320, Cr.P.C. will apply 
to compounding of an offence under N. r Act - Thus, in view of C 
clear mandate of sub-section (2) of s. 4, Cr. P. C., in the absence 
of special procedure relating to compounding under the N. I. 
Act, the procedure relating to compounding u/s.320 shall 
automatically apply. 
s.147 - Effect of non-obstante clause contained in s.147 
- Held: The non-obstante clause used in s.147 does not refer 
to any particular section of the Code of Criminal Procedure but 
refers to the entire Code - When non-obstante clause is used 
D 
in the said fashion the extent of its impact has to be found out E 
on the basis of consideration of the intent and purpose of 
insertion of such a clause - s. 147 came by way of amendment 
- The amendment introduced was "to make offences under the 
Act compoundable"- The offence under the N.I. Act, which was 
previously non-compoundable, in view of s.320(9), Cr.P.C. 
became compoundable - That would not mean that the effect 
F 
of s. 147 is to obliterate all statutory provisions of s. 320, Cr.P. C. 
relating to the mode and manner of compounding of an offence 
- s.147 will only override s.320(9), Cr.P.C. in so far as offence 
u/s. 147 of N.I. Act is concerned. 
G 
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: Non-obstante 
clause- Significance of- Held: The insertion of a non-obstante 
. clause is a well known legislative device and in olden times it 
had the effect of non obstante aliquo statuto in contrarium 
(notwithstanding any statute to the contrary) ~ Under the 
H 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 
A Scheme of modern legislation, non-obstante clause has a 
contextual and limited application - The impact of a 'non-
obstante clause' has to be limited to the extent it is intended ' 
by the Parliament and not beyond that. 
JUDGMENT/ORDER: Interpretation of - Held: It is well ' 
B settled that a judgment is always an authority for what it decides 
- It is equally well settled that a judgment cannot be read as a 
statute - It has to be read in the context of the facts discussed 
in it- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s.147. 
c 
COMPANIES ACT, 1956: s.391 - Sanction of scheme -
Held: The proposed scheme cannot be viola
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.