Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 552 (RAJ)

Sunil Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2011-03-14

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - According to the order-sheet dated March 07, 2011, both the parties, Mr. Sunil Jain, the petitioner and Mr. Arsad Ali, respondent No.2, were present before this Court. They were also identified by their respective counsel. Their statements have also been recorded by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) and are available in the Court file. The compromise entered between the parties is also available in the Court file. 2. Both the learned counsel are ad idem that the parties have entered into a compromise. 3. Relying on the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. [ AIR 2010 SC 1907 ] , Mr. Mahendra Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the amount of percentage, which can be imposed upon the petitioner, should be reduced from 15% to 5%. According to the learned counsel, the judgment was pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 03.05.2010. Since the judgment is prospective in nature, the petitioner did not have any opportunity to apply before the learned trial court for compounding of the offence. It is only subsequently that the petitioner is entitled to take the benefit of judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra). Therefore, in the interest of justice, 15%, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, should really be reduced to 5%. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court. 5. While laying down the guidelines, the Apex Court has granted the discretion to the competent court to reduce the scale suggested by it. However, the Apex Court has directed that the court should record its reasons in case it wishes to deviate from the scale established by the Apex Court. 6. The present case relates to the year 2005 wherein the complainant, Mr. Arsad Ali had filed a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned trial court had convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide judgment dated 29.7.2010. It is only after the judgment has been pronounced that a compromise has been reached between the parties. Thus, to the limited extent that the petitioner did not have a chance to move the application before the learned trial court, the petitioner is certainly justified. Therefore, the petitioner has moved this application for compounding of the case before this Court . 7. Thus, to the limited extent that the petitioner did not have a chance to move the application before the learned trial court, the petitioner is certainly justified. Therefore, the petitioner has moved this application for compounding of the case before this Court . 7. Since the petitioner was denied the opportunity to move the application, and since he has availed the chance before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that 15% interest should not be demanded from the petitioner. However, considering the fact that the amount deposited by the petitioner would naturally go to the State Legal Service Authority, this Court is not inclined to reduce the interest from 15% to 5%. After all, the amount paid by the petitioner would go for the benefit of poor people of the State. The petitioner, as a citizen of the State, possibly cannot complain that he is being asked to pay an amount for the amelioration of the condition of the down trodden of this State. Therefore, this Court reduced the amount from 15% to 10%. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 30,000/- with the State Legal Service Authority within a period of two months from today. The offence of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act shall stand compounded, and the petitioner, Sunil Jain S/o Late Bhanwar Lal Jain, shall stand acquitted of the said offence as soon as an amount of Rs. 30,000/- is deposited with the State Legal Service Authority. Therefore, the judgment dated 11.02.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur and the judgment dated 29.07.2010, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur, is kept in abeyance till the aforementioned amount is deposited within the period mentioned above. Any warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner shall remain stayed. 8. With these observations, this petition is, hereby, disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******