1. Proceedings initiated under Section - 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (hereinafter referred to as ''Act''), were pending before the trial court. They were in all ten cases and they were all clubbed together.
2. Accused no.2 was permitted to sign the compromise application filed by the learned counsels. Both the learned counsels and the parties submitted that they have no objection to allow the compromise petition. The compromise petition was taken on record. It was stated that the accused has paid a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand Only), through Demand Draft bearing No.225128, drawn on SBM, Bellary branch, and that the balance will be paid on the subsequent date.
3. The compromise petition was effected and the matter was compounded. Thereafter, the trial court ordered as under:
"A1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay balance amount as per the compromise application. In default each of the accused shall undergo S.I. for 1 year."
4. Aggrieved by this portion of the order, the accused have filed this revision petition.
5. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that irrespective of the compromise being effected, the trial court had no authority to impose a sentence of simple imprisonment for one year in the event of default in paying the balance amount, which is unknown in Law.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in terms of the compromise petition, a part of the amount have been paid and the balance amount is yet to be received. It is only to ensure that the balance amount is received, that the trial court thought it appropriate to impose condition.
7. On hearing the learned counsels, I''am of the considered view that such an order is unsustainable and opposed to Law. A compromise is entered into between the parties on mutually agreeable terms and conditions. Violation of such terms and conditions would act as a ground for the other to initiate proceedings known to Law. A sentence can be awarded only on a conviction. There is no conviction in this case. The matter has been compounded. Hence, for that reason also, the trial court does not have any authority to impose a sentence in the absence of conviction. The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding a sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The portion of the order passed by the trial court namely, "in default each of the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year" is set-aside. Rest of the order is undisturbed.
