2000 JTR(SC) 1515
2000 4 AICLR 753 ; 2000 AIR(SC) 3145 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 3483 ; 2001 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 387 ; 2000 41 AllCriC 900 ; 2001 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 576 ; 2001 1 APLJ 4 ; 2001 BankJ 98 ; 2001 5 BomCR(SC) 111 ; 2000 2 CHN(SC) 66 ; 2001 1 CivCC 540 ; 2001 107 CompCas 310 ; 2000 4 Crimes(SC) 38 ; 2000 CrLJ 4673 ; 2000 DCR 1 ; 2000 3 EastCrC(SC) 1091 ; 2000 2 JCC 614 ; 2000 Supp1 JT 82 ; 2000 2 KLJ(NOC) 38 ; 2000 3 MWN(Cri) 30 ; 2000 4 RCR(Cri) 357 ; 2001 4 RCR(Cri) 357 ; 2000 6 Scale 451 ; 2000 7 SCC 388 ; 2000 SCC(Cri) 1388 ; 2000 SCR 300 ; 2000 KHC 1700 ; 2000 6 Supreme 378
2000(6) Supreme 378
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
M. Jagannadha Rao & M.B. Shah, JJ.
M/s. Cranex Ltd. & Anr. -Appellants
versus
M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2224 of 2000)
Decided on 14-9-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R. Venugopal Reddy, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. S. Usha Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondents : A. Subba Rao, Advocate.
(A) The case pertains to a settlement of a monetary dispute arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where a cheque was dishonoured and proceedings were initiated. The matter involved a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence, with the dispute being resolved through a settlement deposit during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate court. The provisions under Section 138 contemplate adjudication of the cheque dishonour claim, and the settlement impacted the ongoing criminal proceedings.
(B) Key legal principles include the permissibility of settling a monetary dispute during appellate proceedings, the power of the appellate court to consider subsequent settlement events, and the discretion to set aside prior orders if justice so requires. The court also recognised that the depositing party may be allowed to withdraw the deposited amount upon the respondents undertaking not to press for conviction.
Facts of the case:
A cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was tried, leading to a conviction and sentence. While a criminal appeal against the conviction was pending, the parties settled the monetary dispute, and the appellant deposited a sum in court. The High Court had passed an interlocutory order which was challenged, prompting this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the settlement and deposit of the amount during pendency warranted setting aside the earlier interlocutory order and remitting the matter to the appellate court for appropriate disposal in light of the settlement.
Issues:
Whether a settlement of the monetary dispute during pendency of a criminal appeal under Section 138 requires the appellate court to remit the matter for reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi:
The appellate court must consider subsequent settlement and deposit of the amount, and may set aside prior orders and remit the matter for disposal in accordance with law, taking into account the settlement.
Result:
The impugned order was set aside, the matter was remanded to the appellate court, and the deposit amount was allowed to be withdrawn upon the respondents undertaking not to press for conviction or sentence.
(A) The case pertains to a settlement of a monetary dispute arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where a cheque was dishonoured and proceedings were initiated. The matter involved a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence, with the dispute being resolved through a settlement deposit during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate court. The provisions under Section 138 contemplate adjudication of the cheque dishonour claim, and the settlement impacted the ongoing criminal proceedings.
(B) Key legal principles include the permissibility of settling a monetary dispute during appellate proceedings, the power of the appellate court to consider subsequent settlement events, and the discretion to set aside prior orders if justice so requires. The court also recognised that the depositing party may be allowed to withdraw the deposited amount upon the respondents undertaking not to press for conviction.
Facts of the case:
A cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was tried, leading to a conviction and sentence. While a criminal appeal against the conviction was pending, the parties settled the monetary dispute, and the appellant deposited a sum in court. The High Court had passed an interlocutory order which was challenged, prompting this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the settlement and deposit of the amount during pendency warranted setting aside the earlier interlocutory order and remitting the matter to the appellate court for appropriate disposal in light of the settlement.
Issues:
Whether a settlement of the monetary dispute during pendency of a criminal appeal under Section 138 requires the appellate court to remit the matter for reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi:
The appellate court must consider subsequent settlement and deposit of the amount, and may set aside prior orders and remit the matter for disposal in accordance with law, taking into account the settlement.
Result:
The impugned order was set aside, the matter was remanded to the appellate court, and the deposit amount was allowed to be withdrawn upon the respondents undertaking not to press for conviction or sentence.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The case involves a settlement of the money claim during the pendency of a criminal appeal arising out of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The main appeal, namely, Criminal Appeal No. 59/99, against the conviction is pending before the VIth Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad in the matter arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That is an appeal against the order dated 8.2.99 of the XVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, sentencing the appellant No. 2, representing the firm, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and further to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- or in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. There is also a direction against the 2nd appellant representing the 1st appellant Company, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The appeal against the conviction and sentence is pending as aforesaid, before the VIth Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.
3. At that stage, it appears that some interlocutory applications were filed by the appellants in the trial Court and the said applications were dismissed. Against the said order, a revision case No. 91/2000 was filed in the High Court and it was also dismissed. This appeal has been preferred against the said order passed by the High Court in the interlocutory proceedings.
4. During the pendency of the case, there appears to be a settlement of the money-dispute between the parties. On 24.8.2000 this Court passed an order as follows :
"Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners would deposit the cheque amount (Rs. 5,96,688/-) which was dishonoured within three weeks from today before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. In this view of the matter, stand over for three weeks. Application for substituting the name of Mr. S.C. Agrawal as Managing Director of the petitioner No. 1 s firm in place of Mr. Piyus Agrawal, Managing Director is allowed".
It appears, subsequent to the said order, the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. 5,96,688/- in the Court of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. A Certificate to that effect issued by the said Court has been filed by the counsel for the petitioners, in this Court.
5. In the light of the subsequent developments in the case, we are of the view that the order passed in the Interlocutory application be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Appellate Court where the appeal is pending. We order accordingly.
6. The appellate Court will consider the subsequent events, namely, of the appellant having paid a sum of Rs. 5,976,688/- under a settlement to the 1st respondent and will dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. On merits, it will be open even to set aside the conviction in accordance with law. Otherwise, it has power to convict or direct sentence of imprisonment or fine. The appellate Court can therefore take the subsequent events into account and pass such order as it may deem fit in the appeal. Under Section 138 the Court can, if it is inclined to convict, pass an order of imprisonment or even fine.
7. The impugned order passed by the High Court in the present interlocutory proceedings is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Court, namely the VIth Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, as stated above.
8. We also record the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent that if the amount deposited is permitted to be withdrawn by the first respondent, then the 1st respondent will not press before the Appellate Court for a conviction or for a sentence be it for imprisonment or fine. In such circumstances, the Appellate Court will consider whether the conviction is to be maintained or an order of imposition of fine is to be passed, in the light of the stand taken by the counsel for the 1st respondent.
9. We direct the Court in which the deposit has been made, to allow the 1st respondent to withdraw the amount accordingly. With the above directions the appeal is disposed of.
(C.R.) Order accordingly
****************