Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 847 (HP)

PRITHVI CHAND v. SANTOSH

2013-09-26

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J 1. ASSAILING the judgment dated 17.3.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, in Criminal Case No.56/3 of 2010, titled as Santosh versus Prithvi, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, vide judgment dated 15.7.2013, in Criminal Appeal No.33 Cr.A/10 of 2011, titled as Prithvi Chand versus Santosh, the accused petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition under the provisions of Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. IT is seen that the Trial Court has convicted the accused petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and pay fine of Rs.70,000/-, in relation to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.65,000/- has been ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. The judgment of conviction and sentence has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan. Parties have amicably resolved their dispute, 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.60,000/-, which already stands paid to the respondent, as is so stated by the petitioner and admitted by the respondent, who are present in Court today. Petitioner undertakes to deposit 15% of the cheque amount in the Registry of this Court on or before 31.10.2013, which shall be remitted to the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, H.P. 4. PETITIONER states that he has deposited a sum of Rs.17,500/- in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajgarh. He is at liberty to withdraw the said amount. Petitioner's undertaking is accepted and accordingly the offence is compounded and the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are set aside. 5. IT is clarified that in the event of non fulfillment of the solemn undertaking furnished by the petitioner to this Court, not only the judgments of conviction and sentence 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. 6. WITH the aforesaid observations, present Revision Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.