Orissa HC Acquits Cheque-Dishonour Convict After Complainant Accepts Full Compensation, Condoning 1,064-Day Revision Delay

The petitioner sought revision of concurrent judgments convicting and sentencing him for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

His revision was filed 1,064 days late, and he applied under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay.

The parties filed a joint affidavit stating that the complainant had received the compensation amount and did not wish to proceed.

Although the affidavit was signed by the complainant and the petitioner’s wife, the complainant appeared before the Court, confirmed the settlement, and consented to compounding the offence

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits a court to condone delay where the interests of justice warrant it

Section 147 of the NI Act makes offences under that Act compoundable; accordingly, an offence under Section 138 may be compounded

The Court also relied on Madhya Pradesh State Legal Service Authority v. Prateek Jain and Another, (2014) 10 SCC 690, as authority relevant to permitting compromise in the circumstances of the case

The Court considered that the complainant did not oppose condonation and that the petitioner was entitled to challenge his conviction and sentence despite the delay.

Given the parties’ settlement, the Court found that condoning the delay would best serve the interests of justice.

On the merits, the complainant personally confirmed receipt of the full compensation and his consent to compounding.

Applying Section 147 of the NI Act and the cited precedent, the Court permitted the parties to compound the offence.

It allowed the criminal revision on compromise, permitted compounding of the Section 138 offence, set aside the judgments of conviction and sentence, and acquitted the petitioner.

As the petitioner was stated to be in custody, the Court directed his release forthwith unless he was required in another case