Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1716 (PNJ)

Naresh Goel v. Sumit Goel etc.

2013-12-19

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral):- CRM No. 51552 of 2013 Notice of the application. At this stage, Mr. Bhaskar Sharma, Advocate causes appearance on behalf of the respondents. For the reasons stated in the application, prayer for preponning the hearing is allowed. The case is preponned to today. CRR No. 3671 of 2013 1. The instant petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 17/22.8.2012, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay compensation equivalent to cheque amount of Rs. 75,000/- under section 353(3) Cr.P.C. and the judgment dated 12.11.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.8.2012, has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the accusedpetitioner took friendly loan of Rs. 75000/- from the complainantrespondent. The petitioner issued cheque No.065921 dated 17.11.2009, amounting to Rs. 75,000/- in favour of the complainant, in order to discharge his legally enforceable liability. The said cheque was presented for encashment but was returned unpaid by the banker on 15.03.2010, with remarks, ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant approached the accused in this regard twice, but to no avail. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 7.6.2010, was issued to the accused and ultimately, the present complaint was filed. 3. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner vide judgment dated 17/22.8.2012, for the offence and terms as indicated at the outset. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, which was also dismissed on 12.11.2013. Hence the present petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter in dispute has been compromised with the complainant. The agreed amount of Rs. 75,000/- already stands paid to the complainant. He further submits that the petitioner is lodged in Central Jail, Ambala and prays that the petitioner be released. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant Sumit Goel states that he has received the amount of Rs. 75,000/- and there is no other dispute pending between the parties. The agreed amount of Rs. 75,000/- already stands paid to the complainant. He further submits that the petitioner is lodged in Central Jail, Ambala and prays that the petitioner be released. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant Sumit Goel states that he has received the amount of Rs. 75,000/- and there is no other dispute pending between the parties. He further submits that he has no objection if the judgment/order of conviction and sentence are set aside and petitioner be released. 7. Heard. 8. The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is permitted to be compounded in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court on Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H, [2010(3) Law Herald (SC) 1874] : 2010(5) SCC 663 . 9. Keeping in view the fact that the matter has been finally settled, the liability is discharged; the present petition is allowed; judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17/22.8.2012 passed in complaint case No. 296 dated 19.9.2011, by the JMIC, Panchkula ; and judgment dated 12.11.2013, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 20.9.2012/10.7.2013, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, confirming the conviction and sentence of the accusedpetitioner, are hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the charge framed against him on the basis of compromise. He be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. 10. The penalty in terms of Damodar S. Prabhu’s case supra i.e. ( 15% of the cheque amount) be deposited with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. However, in case the petitioner fails to deposit the amount aforesaid within the stipulated period, the present revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed without further notice.