Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 21 (JHR)

Rajendra Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-04

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
ORDER By Court :-Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the respondent State. The O.P. No. 2 has not appeared in spite of notice. Also perused the record called for in this case. 2. This revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 19.06.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 201 of 2007, whereby the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld by the Appellate Court. 3. It may be pointed out that O.P. No. 2 complainant had filed a complaint petition against this petitioner stating therein that against some family loan, the petitioner had given a cheque of Rs. 18,200/-to the complainant on 25.04.2006 which was deposited in the Bank and upon the cheque getting dishonored, the complaint was filed in the Court below, which was registered as C-1 Case No. 755/2006. 4. The Trial Court after adjudication of the matter, vide Judgment dated 22.08.2007 held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and upon hearing on the point of sentence, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay Rs. 18,200/- to the complainant within one month. 5. The said Judgment was challenged by the petitioner in the Appellate Court below and the Appellate Court also, by the impugned Judgment, has upheld the Judgment and Order passed against the petitioner, which has been challenged in the present criminal revision. 6. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already given the amount to the complainant and after accepting the amount, the complainant and the petitioner have compromised the case outside the Court. In this connection, an affidavit has been brought on record, as Annexure-1 series, which has been signed by the petitioner as also the O.P. No. 2 complainant.-2 7. However, it appears from the records that the notices issued to the O.P. No. 2 were returned unserved, whereupon, newspaper publication of the notice has been made, but the said O.P. has not appeared in spite of the newspaper publication of the notice. 8. However, it appears from the records that the notices issued to the O.P. No. 2 were returned unserved, whereupon, newspaper publication of the notice has been made, but the said O.P. has not appeared in spite of the newspaper publication of the notice. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case has since been compromised between the parties and since the complainant has no interest in the matter, he has not appeared in spite of the notice published in the newspaper. It has accordingly, been submitted that the compromise arrived at between the parties be accepted. 9. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the complainant has not yet appeared and in absence of the complainant, the affidavit of compromise has been filed, which can not be accepted by this Court. 10. I have gone through lower court records. Upon comparing the signatures of the complainant on the affidavit, which are at Annexure-1 series, and on the complaint petition available in the lower court records, both of them prima facie appear to be of the same person. In view of the fact that the complainant has not appeared in spite of publication of notice in the newspaper, I am inclined to accept the affidavit of compromise brought on record by the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the offence is allowed to be compounded under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of compromise and the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 22.08.2007 passed by learned Trail Court in C-1 Case No. 755/2006, Tr. No. 826/2007, as also the Judgment dated 19.06.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 201 of 2007 are, hereby, set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the accusation on the basis of compounding of the offence. The petitioner is on bail and he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. This criminal revision is, accordingly, allowed.