Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 744 (JHR)

Anil Kumar v. State of Jhar.

2007-09-14

D.K.SINHA

body2007
Order The present Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C,-V, Chaibasa whereby and whereunder the Cr. Appeal NO.30 of 2006 preferred by the petitioner Anil Kumar against the order of his conviction under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act in C-1 Case No. 30 of 2004 passed by Shri Shatrunjay Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chaibasa on 31.01.2006 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Three lakhs) to the Complainant-Opposite Party No.2 Chiranjeet Kumar Das with default stipulation was upheld and maintained by dismissing the appeal. 2. In the meantime two Interlocutory Applications were filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. In I.A.No. 1312 of 2007 the petitioner has prayed for his exemption from surrendering in the court below on the ground that the offence in which he has been convicted is compoundable under Section 147 of the N.L Act 1881 and that a Compromise Petition was filed in the Trial Court as the complainant-Opposite Party No.2 did not want to proceed with the case and the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury in case he surrenders in the court below in view of the fact that the complainant did not want to proceed and the dispute was resolved. 4. I.A.No. 1469 of 2007 being the Compromise Petition was filed on behalf of the Opposite Party NO.2 who entered appearance by filing vakalatnama stating therein that with the intervention of the well-wishers, the parties entered into compromise and he did not want to pursue the present case in the backdrop that he had already received the due amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lakhs) on full satisfaction. A photo copy of the money receipt has been appended in support of the contention (Annexure-A). The Interlocutory Application further contained that the petitioner herein could suffer irreparable loss and injury if surrenders in the court below for custody and the Complainant O.P. No.2 did not want that the petitioner should suffer any longer having been no more grievance against him as the petitioner paid the entire dues to him. The affidavit filed in support of the contention made in LA. No. 1469 of 2007 has been signed by the Opposite Party No.2 Chiranjeet Kumar Das as the deponent duly identified. 5. Heard Mr. The affidavit filed in support of the contention made in LA. No. 1469 of 2007 has been signed by the Opposite Party No.2 Chiranjeet Kumar Das as the deponent duly identified. 5. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner who submitted that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and in terms of such settlement the petitioner made over the entire compensation amount to the O.P. No.2 on full and final satisfaction which has been admitted and accepted by the O.P.No. 2. 6. Mr. Sinha further submitted that the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act is compoundable under Section 147 of the N.L Act and therefore, the petitioner may be dealt leniently in the matter of sentence. He relied on a unreported decision of this Court passed in Cr. Revision No. 753/05. A Bench of this Court in Alpa Sanghani vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. held:- "Since the parties have settled the disputes as regards the cheques involved in this case I feel that the petitioner can be dealt with leniently in the matter of sentence. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent has also no objection for taking lenient view in the matter of sentence. In the above' circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner is set aside. The fine amount imposed upon the petitioner with default stipulation are confirmed. As the sum of Rs. 40,000/- has been paid, the direction that the petitioner should pay compensation is set aside." 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances and upon hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties I direct, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner is set aside. The compensation amount to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lakhs) imposed upon the petitioner Anil Kumar to pay to the Opposite Party No.2 has been effected on full satisfaction of the O.P. No.2 Chiranjeet Kumar Das who in support of that admitted having received the payment (Annexure-A) in I.A. No. 1469 of 2007. In view of such admission the direction to the petitioner to pay compensation as imposed by the Trial Court is set aside and accordingly this Cr. Revision stands disposed of alongwith I.A. No. 1312 of 2007 & I.A. No. 1469 of 2007 in the manner indicated above.