Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2013 (RAJ)

Gopal Regar v. State of Rajasthan

2014-12-05

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 13.06.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Rajsamand (for short 'the appellate court' hereinafter) in Cr.Appeal No.79/2013. The appellate court, while affirming the order dated 06.08.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) has dismissed the appeal. The trial court vide judgment dated 06.08.2012 has convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to undergo one year's simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,20,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the cheque amount was Rs. 80,000/-. The total amount ordered to be paid by the trial court including the fine amount was Rs. 1,20,000/-, out of which, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 80,000/- in compliance of the order of this Court dated 24.06.2013,, which has been disbursed to the respondent-complainant in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 30.10.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner is ready to deposit another amount of Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of the dishonoured cheque before the trial court within two months from today. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant states that in case the petitioner pays Rs. 20,000/- towards the dishnoured cheque and compensation and the same is released to the respondent-complainant forthwith, he will have no objection if the revision petition is allowed and the petitioner is accordingly acquitted of the aforesaid offence. 4. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act reads as under: "147. Offences to be compoundable. - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable." 5. In view of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- before the trial court within a period of two months from today. The said amount will be released to the respondent-complainant forthwith. 6. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgments dated 06.08.2012 and 13.06.2013 are set aside. The petitioner is, accordingly, acquitted of the aforesaid offence. It is however, clarified that in case the amount of Rs. The said amount will be released to the respondent-complainant forthwith. 6. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgments dated 06.08.2012 and 13.06.2013 are set aside. The petitioner is, accordingly, acquitted of the aforesaid offence. It is however, clarified that in case the amount of Rs. 20,000/- is not deposited within the stipulated period, the present revision petition shall stand restored to its original number on an application moved by the respondent-complainant and the petitioner will be arrested forthwith to undergo remaining period of sentence.Petition disposed of. *******