Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 637 (HP)

Leela Dhar v. Labh Singh

2017-06-02

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. The petitioner-convict herein was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ in short). After holding the trial he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation. In appeal learned Sessions Judge, Mandi has affirmed the findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the petitioner-convict and dismissed the appeal vide judgment under challenge in this petition. He has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court on the grounds, inter-alia, that the findings of his conviction recorded in contravention of the evidence available on record are perverse, hence not legally sustainable. Anyhow, this Court need not to go into all factual details nor ponder upon the admissibility of the evidence available on record because during the pendency of the appeal the petitioner-convict has settled the matter with the respondent-complainant consequent upon the settlement so arrived at the payment of Rs.10,000/- to the latter. 2. A joint application under Section 142 of the Act has been filed with a prayer to record the compromise and the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner-convict by both Courts below be quashed and set aside. 3. As a matter of fact consequent upon the compromise having been arrived at between the parties an application under Section 147 of the Act with a prayer to allow the respondent-complainant to compound the offence should have been filed. Anyhow, treating the present application to be the one under Section 147 of the Act, I allow the compounding of the offence by the respondent-complainant, of course, subject to payment of the costs in the light of the judgment of this Court in Dhiraj Singh and others Vs. M/S Suriti Enterprises, Latest HLJ2013(HP) 1120 in which while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babal, (2010) 5 SCC 663 , it has been held that the compounding of the offence though is permissible even in the Appellate Court also, however, subject to payment of costs. 4. M/S Suriti Enterprises, Latest HLJ2013(HP) 1120 in which while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babal, (2010) 5 SCC 663 , it has been held that the compounding of the offence though is permissible even in the Appellate Court also, however, subject to payment of costs. 4. As a matter of fact, the Apex Court has formulated a Scheme which find mention in the judgment supra and as per the same if the prayer for compounding of offence is made before the Appellate Court, the cost to be borne by the petitioner-convict may be up to 15% of the cheque amount. The Court however may reduce the same keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. 5. In the case in hand the cheque amount though was Rs.60,000/-, however, as per the findings recorded by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned lower Appellate Court, out of it a sum of Rs.50,000/- was already paid by the petitioner-convict to the respondent-complainant well before institution of the suit. Therefore, the complaint was filed only with regard to the remaining amount i.e. Rs.10,000/-. In the given facts and circumstances, the levy of costs @5% of Rs.10,000/- would serve the ends of justice. 6. Being so, there shall be a direction to the petitioner-convict to deposit the cost @ as aforesaid with the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Mandi within three weeks from today. The receipt qua deposit of the cost be produced in this Court on 13.7.2017 and for that, the matter be listed in the Chambers at 4:15 P.M. In the event of the convict-petitioner failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, he shall surrender in the trial Court to serve out the sentence. 7. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the application Cr.MP No. 576 of 2017 and any other applications, if any.