A. T. SIVAPERUMALversusMOHAMMED HYATH (D) BY LRS.

                       [2017] 6 S.C.R. 669



                     A. T. SIVAPERUMAL                                A
                                v.
               MOHAMMED HYATH (D) BY LRS.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 587 of 2017)
                        MARCH 27, 2017                                B
        (KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
        Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 -s.138-Acquittal of accused
consequent to settlement between the parties - Towards discharge
 of a liability, appellant-accused issued a cheque to the complainant
- The cheque, when presented for realization, was returned by the C
 bank with endorsement "account closed" - After issuance of
statutory notice, complaint filed uls. I 38 - Trial court acquitted
appellant-accused - However. High Court reversed the acquittal
and convicted the appellant - On appeal, held: Parties were
suggested to arrive at an amicable settlement, to which both parties D
agreed - Parties arrived at a settlement - As a result, impugned
judgment of High Court set aside and appellant acquitted of charge
 u/s.138.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 By an earlier order, this Court had granted stay     E
on a condition that the appellant should deposit an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) before the Trial Court, which
has been duly complied with. When the matter came up for hearing,
the son of the appellant was present in the Court. Respondent
No.4 was present in the Court, who stated that he is representing     F
all the legal representatives of complainant. The parties and their
counsel were suggested whether they can talk to each other to
arrive at an amicable settlement, for which both the parties as
well as counsel appearing for the parties readily agreed. (Para SJ
(671-C-D]
       1.2 After talking to each other the parties have arrived at a G
 settlement for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lacs) including
 the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) already
·deposited before the Trial Court. The appellant is acquitted of
 the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
 1881. (Paras 6, 7) (671-E-F]                                        H
                             669
670            SUPREME COURT REPORTS_                       [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      587 of2017.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 06.01.2011 of the High Court
      ofKarnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 895 of2004.
            Ms. Lata Krishnamurti, Dr. B. Kalaivannan, Neeraj Shekhar,
B     Ashutosh Thakur, Animesh Kumar, Ajay Awasthi, P.R. Shankar, S. Syed
      Mahaboob, P. R. Bala Subramanian, Advs. for the Appellant.
           A.T.M. Sampath, Ms. T. S. Shanthi, Rahul Nagpal, Advs., for the
      Respondents.
·c          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            R. BANUMATHI, J. l. Leave granted.
         2. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the HigH Cotirt of
  Kamataka at Bangalore in Cr!. A. No.895 of2004 in and by which the
  High Court set aside the acquittal of the appellant and convicted him for
D the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
  imposing a fine ofRs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs), in default to
  undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of the
  fine amount, the High Court has directed that a sum of Rs. I 0,50,000/-
  (Rupees Ten Lacs Fifty Thousand) be paid as compensation to the legal
E representatives of the complainant/Mohammed Hyath.
          3. The case of the complainant/Mohammed Hyath is that the
    appellant/accused borrowed a sum of Rs. I 0,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs),
  . on 01.01.2002, from him as a loan to develop his A.T.S. Groundnuts
    Sweets Factory at Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore and undertook to repay
    it on or before 16.08.2002 with simple interest. Further case of the
 F complainant is that towards discharge of the said liability, the appellant/
    accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. I 0,22,419/- dated 14.11.2002
    drawn on Karnataka Industrial Co-operative Bank Limited, Bangalore
    Rural Branch, Chamarajpet, Bangalore. The said cheque, when it was
    presented for realization, was returned with the endorsement "account
 G closed". After issuing the statutory notice, the complainant had filed a
    complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.
    No.40274/2002 before the XVIII ACMM & XX ASCJ, Bangalore City.
            4. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 27 .04.2004 acquitted the
      appellant/accused on the ground that the complainant has not proved the.
 H
  A. T. SNAPERUMAL v. MOHAMMED HYATH (D) BY LRS.                            671
                 [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

case beyond reasonable doubt as the documentary and also the oral A
evidence adduced by the appellant/accused substantiates the defence
plea of the accused. Being aggrieved, the said complainant preferred
appeal before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.895 of2004, in and
by which the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the
appellant as aforesaid in paragraph (2). Being aggrieved, the appellant/ B
accused is before us in this appeal by way of special leave.
       5. When the special leave petition came up for hearing, by order
dated 12.05.2011 this Court had granted stay on condition that the
appellant herein should deposit an amount ofRs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three
Lacs) before the Trial Court i.e. the Court of Small Causes andACMM,
Bangalore, which has been duly complied with. The matter was lingering C
on file for quite some time. When the matter came up for hearing today
i.e. on 27.03.2017, the son of the appellant, by name Srinivasan, was
present in the Court. Respondent No.4/Abdul Kaleem, was present in
the Court, who stated that he is representing all the legal representatives
of complainant/Mohammed Hyath. We suggested to the parties and to D
their counsel whether they can talk to each other to arrive at an amicable
settlement, for which both the parties as well as Ms. Lata Krishnamurti
and Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the parties readily
agreed.
       6. After talking to each other the parties have arrived at a         E
settlement for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lacs) including the
amount ofRs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lacs) already deposited before
the Trial Court.
       7. In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court rendered
in Criminal Appeal No.895 of2004 is set aside and this appeal is allowed.   F
The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
        8. The respondents are permitted to withdraw Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lacs) deposited before the Court of Small Causes arid
A.C.M.M. Court, Bangalore forthwith, along with the accrued interest,       G
on filing necessary application.
       9. The appellant is granted three months' time from today to pay ·
to the respondents a further sum ofRs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs)
by way of demand draft in favour of Abdul Kaleem. The appellant
                                                                            H
672                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A (represented by his son) is directed to file affidavit ofundertaking to this
  effect before this Court within a period of one week. On failure to pay
  the said amount ofRs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) within the time
  granted, the appellant shall be proceeded with for contempt, in addition
  to the other proceedings, in accordance with law.
B            I0. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.


      Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeal allowed.·