K.M. IBRAHIM versus K.P. MOHAMMED AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 1300 · Decided: 02-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1300 
K.M. IBRAHIM 
v. 
K.P. MOHAMMED AND ANR. 
~ -
(Criminal Appeal No. 2281 of 2009) 
B 
DECEMBER 02, 2009 
. .,., 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
~ 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss.138 and 147: 
'. 
c 
Dishonour of cheque - Conviction of appellant u/s. 138 
..,, 
- Affirmed by High Court - Compromise between rarties -
Application u/s. 147 for compounding of the offence u/s. 138 
- Held: S. 147 does not bar the parties from compounding 
offence uls. 138 even at the appellate stage of proceedings -
D Analogy as to intention of Legislature as expressed in s.320(8) 
CrPC - Power under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass 
appropriate orders in line with s.320(8) CrPC in application 
under s. 147, in order to do justice to the parties - On facts, 
parties allowed to compound the offence since they had 
E 
settled their disputes - Appellant consequently acquitted -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 320 - Constitution of 
mdia, 1950 - Articles 136 and 142. 
Appellant issued cheque to first respondent in 
discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The cheque was 
't. 
F dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. The 
Trial Court convicted the appellant uls.138 of the 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The conviction was 
affirmed by the High Court. 
G 
Dispute arose as to whether compounding of the 
offence under s.138 of the Act could be permitted under 
s.147 of the Act read with s.320 CrPC. 
It was contended by the appellant that since a 
~-
H 
1300 
1 -
K.M. IBRAHIM v. K.P. MOHAMMED AND ANR. 
1-301 
specific power had been given to the parties to a A 
proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act under 
s.147 to compound the offence, there could be no reason 
as to why the same cannot be permitted even after 
conviction, which had been affirmed upto the High Court. 
It was urged that in order to facilitate settlement of B 
disputes, the legislature thought it fit to insert s.147 by 
Amending Act 55 of 2002 which provided that 
notwithstanding anything contained in the CrPC, every 
offence punishable under the Act would be 
compoundable. The appellant urged that in view of the c 
non-obstante clause, the provisions of s.147 were given 
an overriding effect over the CrPC and in view of the clear 
mandate given to the parties to compound an offence 
under the Act, reference to s.320 CrPC can be made for 
purposes of comparison in order to understand the D 
scope of s.147 of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The object of Section 320 CrPC, which 
would not in the strict sense of the term apply to a E 
proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 
gives the parties to the proceedings an opportunity to 
compound offences mentioned in the table contained in 
the said section, with or without the leave of the court, 
and also vests the court with jurisdiction to allow such 
F 
compromise. By virtue of Sub-Section (8), the Legislature 
has taken one step further in vesting jurisdiction in the 
Court to also acquit the accused/convict of the offence 
on the same being allowed to be compounded. Inasmuch 
as, it is with a similar object in mind that s.147 has been G 
inserted into the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by 
amendment, an ana!ogy may be drawn as to the intention 
of the Legislature as expressed in s.320(8) CrPC, 
a_lthough, the same has not been expressly mentioned in 
the amended section to a proceeding under Section 147 H 
1302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A of the Act. [Para 9) [1307-A-D] 
1.2. The Supreme Court is further empowered under 
Article 142 of the Constitution to pass appropriate orders 
in line with Sub-Section (8) of s.320 CrPC in an 
8 application under s.147 of the Act, in order to do justice 
to the parties. ·[Para 1 OJ [1307 -EJ 
1.3. As far as the non-obstante clause included in 
s.147 of the Act is concerned, the Act being a special 
statute, the provisions of s.147 will have an overriding 
C effect over the provisions of the Code relating to 
compounding of offences. [Para 11) [1307-F] 
1.4. Once a person is allowed to compound a case 
as provided for under s.147 of the Negotiable 
0 Instruments Act, 1881, the conviction under s.138 of the 
said Act should also be set aside. [Para 8] [1306-F] 
0.P. Dholakia v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 
762; Ani/ Kumar Haritwal & Anr. v. Alka Gupta & Anr. (2004) 
4 SCC 366; B.C. Seshadri v. B.N. Suryanarayana Rao 2004 
E (11) SCC 51 O; G. Sivarajan 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.