Compounding of offence after conviction -- Compromise after 10 years of litigation -- A sum of Rs.69 lakhs paid to the complainant -- Looking to the quantification of default amount, an additional sum of Rs. 5 lakhs ordered to be deposited by the petitioner with the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Advocates Welfare Fund within a period of two months.

(SC) Decided on: 18.10.2022

Reduction in sentence – Cheque amount was Rs.70,000/- -- Sentence was to pay twice the amount of cheque and to suffer imprisonment for one month -- Amount of fine of Rs.1,40,000/- paid, sentence modified to Rs.1,40,000/- apart from the litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- by setting aside the order of imprisonment for one month.

(SC) Decided on: 13.10.2022

Reduction of sentence to fine, default sentence intact -- Cheque of Rs.3 Lacs – Conviction by Trial Court for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof the appellant was directed to undergo S.I. for six months -- Considering the fact that the appellant is an old lady of 69 years, the substantive sentence substituted by fine in the sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the fine already deposited by the appellant; Rs.55,000/- shall be the sentence for the offences committed by the appellant -- Default sentence awarded by the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court kept intact.

(SC) Decided on: 19.05.2022

Revisional jurisdiction – Condition of pre-deposit of fine/ compensation – High Court ordered unless the fine amount is deposited, the petitioner is not entitled to press into service the hearing the petition filed u/s 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C – Held, depositing of fine amount could not have been made a condition precedent for the purpose of hearing of the revision petition – Impugned order set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 04.08.2021

Suspension of sentence in appeal – Condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount – Non-deposit of -- Direction given that in case the respondents do not deposit the amount in question, then necessary steps warranted under law be taken thereupon and the Appellate Court shall proceed to dispose off the main appeal itself at the earliest.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.03.2021

Double jeopardy – Trial and punishment under Section 420 IPC – Permissibility of – Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution -- While, Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that 'no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once' -- Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts – Held in the case although the offences are different but the facts are the same -- Hence, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. applies -- Consequently, the prosecution u/s 420, IPC was barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.

(SC) Decided on: 01.02.2011