Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 172 (PNJ)

Ram Chand v. Punjab State

2003-01-29

R.L.ANAND

body2003
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 4.10.1994 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, who maintained the conviction of the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Ram Chand and Radha Shyam, partners of M/s Mahavir Rice Traders, Patiala on the allegations that the respondent-firm in order to discharge its liability issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 12,528/- on 18.10.1989, but the cheque was dishonoured. The allegations stood proved, as a result of which the learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 24.12.1993 convicted the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. Not satisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Add. Sessions Judge, Patiala, who vide impinged judgment dated 4.10.1994 dismissed the appeal to the petitioners. 3. Still not satisfied with the judgment of the courts below, the present revision. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners but has simply stated that on account of economic distress earlier the petitioners could not make the payment of the cheque to the drawer. With the passage of time the financial condition of the petitioners has improved little and they are not interested to deprive respondent No. 1 of his legitimate dues. 6. During the course of submissions, a fair offer was given by the learned counsel for the petitioners that his clients are ready to pay in lumpsum a sum of Rs. 25,000/- which will include principal amount as well as interest in full and final settlement. In my opinion, the offer submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners is quite fair. In this manner respondent No. 1 will also get his amount, besides interest, though not at the market rate. But definitely respondent No. 1 will be relieved of civil litigation which might be filed by him subsequently. In my opinion, the offer submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners is quite fair. In this manner respondent No. 1 will also get his amount, besides interest, though not at the market rate. But definitely respondent No. 1 will be relieved of civil litigation which might be filed by him subsequently. In these circumstances, the present revision is disposed of with the observations that let the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim of respondent No. 1 Dharampal within eight weeks in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, failing which the present revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed for all intents and purposes. 7. With above observations, the present revision stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala for compliance. Copy of this order be given Dasti to the petitioners on payment. Revision allowed.