# Mahesh Chand Revisionist v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 727 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-08-11 - **Bench:** Pramod Kumar Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahesh-chand-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44379 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Cheque dishonour - Conviction by Magistrate affirmed in appeal - Matter compromised during pendency of criminal revision - Compounding of offence at revisional stage - Accused willing to deposit 15% of cheque amount as per guidelines of Supreme Court - Court permitted compounding subject to deposit of 15% of cheque amount with State Legal Services Authority - No coercive action to be taken against revisionist till next date. Where the revisionist, convicted under Section 138 N.I. Act and whose appeal had been dismissed, filed a joint affidavit with the complainant during pendency of criminal revision stating that the dispute had been amicably settled and the complainant had received the cheque amount along with compensation, the High Court held that the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is compoundable even at the revisional stage. Following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., the Court directed the revisionist to deposit 15% of the cheque amount as costs with the State Legal Services Authority for permitting compounding. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action was directed to be taken against the revisionist in compliance of the conviction order of the lower court. Case Law discussed: Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. ## Text 8 All. Mahesh Chand Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 727 (2016) 8 ILRA 727 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Criminal Revision No.- 828 Of 2016 Mahesh Chand ...Revisionist Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Anand Kumar Singh Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. Headnote: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Cheque dishonour - Conviction by Magistrate affirmed in appeal - Matter compromised during pendency of criminal revision - Compounding of offence at revisional stage - Accused willing to deposit 15% of cheque amount as per guidelines of Supreme Court - Court permitted compounding subject to deposit of 15% of cheque amount with State Legal Services Authority - No coercive action to be taken against revisionist till next date. Where the revisionist, convicted under Section 138 N.I. Act and whose appeal had been dismissed, filed a joint affidavit with the complainant during pendency of criminal revision stating that the dispute had been amicably settled and the complainant had received the cheque amount along with compensation, the High Court held that the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is compoundable even at the revisional stage. Following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., the Court directed the revisionist to deposit 15% of the cheque amount as costs with the State Legal Services Authority for permitting compounding. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action was directed to be taken against the revisionist in compliance of the conviction order of the lower court. Case Law discussed: Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.) (Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard counsel for the revisionist, counsel for opposite party no. 2 and AGA for opposite party no. 1, and perused the record. 2. Revisionist was convicted under section 138 of N.I. Act and was sentenced for imprisonment of one year and Rs. 70,000/- as fine by judgement dated 25.2.2011 of ACJM, Court 728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES No. 2, Meerut. Against said judgement, Criminal Appeal no. 114 of 2011, Mahesh Chand Vs. Nand Kishor Sharma was preferred, which was dismissed by judgement dated 31.1.2016 of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Meerut. Against these judgements revisionist had preferred present criminal revision. 3. At the time of hearing of revision, joint affidavit has been filed by revisionist Mahesh Chand and opposite party no.-2/ complainant Nand Kishore Sharma that they have settled their dispute outside the court by compromise; and in terms of said compromise complainant Nand Kishore Sharma had received Rs. 70,000/- in lieu of his cheque (of Rs.50,000/-) for dishonour by which prosecution has been carried out on his behalf. When it was enquired by the court as to whether such matter may be compromised in revision, the counsel for the revisionist cited Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has given certain guidelines which are as under: "21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed: THE GUIDELINES (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: (a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused. (b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit. (c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs. 8 All. Mahesh Chand Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 729 (d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount." "25. The graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to encourage compounding at an early stage of litigation. In the status quo, valuable time of the Court is spent on the trial of these cases and the parties are not liable to pay any Court fee since the proceedings are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the impact of the offence is largely confined to the private parties. Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the proceedings to their logical end." 4. Counsel for the revisionist informs that in compliance of abovementioned guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court, revisionist is ready and willing to deposit 15% of cheque amount for compounding the matter. Considering facts and circumstances of this matter, this request is accepted. The revisionist is directed to deposit 15% amount of cheque in question which is Rs. 7,500/- in this court which will be remitted in the account of State Legal Services Authority, Lucknow. 5. List on 22.8.2016. 6. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action will be taken against revisionist in compliance of conviction order of lower court. ----------- 730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2016) 8 ILRA 730 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J. First Appeal No.- 525 Of 1983 & First Appeal No.- 534 Of 1983 Sachchey Ram & Anr. ...Appellants Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellants: J.C. Srivastava, P.N. Tripathi, Pankaj Dubey, Y.K. Sinha, Y.D. Sharma Counsel for the Respondent: U.S. Awasthi Procedure: Land acquisition - Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 decided by District Judge, Ghaziabad by judgment dated 30.11.1981 awarding compensation @ Rs.6/- per square yard - Against which First Appeal filed before High Court seeking enhancement of compensation. Citation: Relied on: Kanwar Singh and others v. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 136 Chiman Lal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 3 SCC 751 Bhupal Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 5 SCC 801 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (1) Supreme 319 Headnote: Land acquisition - Determination of market value - Market value of acquired land has to be determined with reference to the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act - Subsequent acquisitions or compensation determined in respect of lands acquired many years later cannot be relied upon for determining the market value - Comparable sale instances prior to acquisition and surrounding circumstances indicate that the market value of the land acquired in the year 1976 would not exceed Rs.20/- per square yard after making deductions for development and largeness of area - Therefore, compensation awarded by the reference court requires enhancement. Result: Appeals allowed - Market value of the acquired land determined at Rs.20/- per square yard - Appellants held entitled to compensation at the said rate along with statutory benefits and interest after adjusting compensation already received. (Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.)