Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 330 (HP)

ROOP LAL v. MANOJ KUMAR

2013-04-22

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. ASSAILING the judgment dated 18.2.2008, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, District Mandi in complaint No.5-II of 2007, titled as Manoj Kumar versus Roop Lal, as modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Mandi (Camp at Karsog), District Mandi, vide judgment dated 9.5.2011, passed in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2008, titled as Roop Lal versus Manoj Kumar and another, the accused- petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition under the provisions of Sections 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. IT is seen that the Trial Court has convicted the accused-petitioner and ordered him to pay fine double the amount of cheque in question, i.e. Rs.50,000/-, in relation to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of this amount of Rs.50,000/-, an amount of Rs.40,000/- has been ordered to be paid to the complainant. The judgment of conviction and sentence has been modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, and the petitioner has been ordered to pay fine of Rs.35,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- and undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months instead of six months. Petitioner is present in the Court and through his counsel requests that the matter be compounded, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu versus Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 . 3. CHEQUE amount is of Rs.25,000/- and the said amount already stands paid by the petitioner to the respondent. The petitioner undertakes to deposit 15% of the cheque amount in the Registry of this Court within a period of six weeks from today, which shall be remitted to the H.P. Legal Services Authority. 4. PETITIONER 's undertaking is accepted and accordingly the offence is compounded and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, as modified by the lower Appellate Court is set aside. 4. PETITIONER 's undertaking is accepted and accordingly the offence is compounded and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, as modified by the lower Appellate Court is set aside. It is clarified that in the event of non fulfillment of the solemn undertaking furnished by the petitioner to this Court, not only the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, as modified by the lower Appellate Court would automatically revive but also proceedings for violation of the undertaking, under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act as also the Constitution of India, shall be initiated against him. 5. CONSEQUENTLY, Cr.MP No.364 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for permission to compound the offence stands disposed of. With the aforesaid observations, present Revision Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.