Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 133 (HP)

Hira Nand Sharma v. Madan Lal Thakur

2013-02-28

V.K.AHUJA

body2013
JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J. This order shall dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for setting aside the order dated 8.10.2012 passed in case No. 109-S/10 of 2012 titled as Hira Nand Sharma Vs. Madan Lal Thakur, to the extent of condition regarding deposit of one third amount out of total compensation. 2. Brief facts leadings to the filing of the present complaint are that the respondent hereinafter referred to as the complainant filed a complaint before the learned trial Court against the present petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in regard to the dishonour of two cheques amounting to ` 1,50,000/-and ` 5,00,000/-. The case was tried by the learned trial Court and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of ` 6,90,000/-to the complainant. 3. An appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 8.10.2012 granted time to the petitioner to deposit one third of the compensation in the learned trial Court. An application was filed by the petitioner for extension of time and vide its order dated 9.11.2012, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application and extended time till 15.12.2012. 4. Being aggrieved by the orders passed directing the petitioner to deposit one third of the compensation amount and time extended for deposit of the compensation amount, the petitioner filed the present petition. 5. An application bearing Cr.MP No. 1076 of 2012 was also filed by the petitioner under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of the sentence and this Court vide order dated 11.12.2012, suspended the sentence subject to the deposit of one third of the compensation amount on or before 10.1.2013 and the application was disposed of. Subsequently time was extended and still the petitioner failed to deposit the compensation amount, hence, on 25.2.2013, arguments were heard in the main petition. 6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed for deposit of one third of the amount of compensation is liable to be set aside since it is too harsh and the petitioner is unable to deposit the one third of the compensation awarded by the learned trial Court. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and another, (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 528, wherein considering the provisions of Section 357(2) and 357(3) and other provisions, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a part of the compensation may be directed to be deposited, but the same must be a reasonable amount. 7. The facts of the case may be referred to that the cheques in question were allegedly issued by the petitioner on 5.9.2011. The petitioner faced the trial, which concluded on 30.8.2012. From the date the case was filed, it was known to the petitioner that in case the case goes against him, he will have to deposit the amount of fine or compensation as may be imposed upon him. From 30.8.2012, it was clear to the petitioner that the compensation has been awarded as against him and he will have to deposit the amount, for which, efforts should have been made by the petitioner. But still after the time was given to deposit one third of the compensation amount by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as by this Court, still he has not complied with the order and submitted that the compensation amount awarded is too harsh. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the petitioner has not taken steps to comply with the order and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge directing the petitioner to deposit one third of the compensation amount, cannot be termed as harsh in any manner. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner for setting aside the said order is dismissed. However, 15 days’ more time from today, is granted to the petitioner to deposit the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned trial Court. 8. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.