Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 64 (HP)

Narian Singh v. Balak Ram

2017-01-13

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - Cr. MP(M) No. 33 of 2017 : Heard. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated that they do not intend to file reply to the application. Accordingly, in view of the above as well as grounds stated in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. Application is disposed of. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Cr. Revision No. 17 of 2017 : Be registered. Issue notice. Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, as well as Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, waive service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, respectively. 2. Present Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 21.6.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 21/15/2013, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.1.2013/28.3.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chachiot, at Gohar, District Mandi in Case No. 11-I/12/5-III/2012, whereby learned trial Court while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- in favour of the complainant. 3. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that on 15.8.2011,respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), supplied 200 apple cartons @ 500/- each to the petitioner accused. With a view to discharge his liability, the petitioner issued post dated cheque beraing No.511592 dated 4.10.2011, amounting to Rs. 1,10,000/- drawn at Punjab National Bank, Branch Jhungi However, fact remains that on presentation, aforesaid cheque was returned twice by the bankers on 20.11.2011 and 22.12.2011 on account of insufficient funds. Immediately, after dishonouring of cheque, the complainant got legal notice issued, to the petitioner accused calling upon him to make the payment of the cheque amount within the stipulated time, however, no steps were taken, as a result of which, the complainant was compelled to initiate the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chachiot, at Gohar, District Mandi. 4. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chachiot, at Gohar, District Mandi. 4. Learned trial Court after satisfying itself that a prima-facie case exists against the petitioner-accused, put notice of accusation under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner-accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. Subsequently, the learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the complainant, held petitioner-accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act vide judgment dated 28.1.2013/28.3.2013 and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per the description given herein above. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, present petitioner-accused filed an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mandi. However, fact remains that aforesaid appeal having been preferred by the petitioner-accused was dismissed, as a result of which, impugned judgment of conviction dated 28.1.2013 came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused approached this Court by way of instant criminal revision petition, praying therein for his acquittal after quashing and setting-aside the judgment of conviction recorded by both the Courts below. 7. Today during the proceedings of the case, Mr. H.S. Rangra, counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that entire cheque amount stands paid to the complainant and as such, present matter can be ordered to be compounded in terms of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2015) 5 SCC 663 , because petitioner accused has already deposited the entire amount, as ordered by the learned Court below. 8. Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel representing respondent No.1, on the instructions having been received from respondent No.1, who is present in Court, also acknowledged that entire amount of i.e., 1,10,000/- stands received by the respondent and as such, respondents have no objection in case the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge after compounding the offence. However, this Court with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the statement having been made by the counsel representing the parties also enquired the factum with regard to the payment from the complainant namely Balak Ram, who is present before the Court. Sh. However, this Court with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the statement having been made by the counsel representing the parties also enquired the factum with regard to the payment from the complainant namely Balak Ram, who is present before the Court. Sh. Balak Ram stated on oath that he has received entire amount i.e. 1,10,000/- from the petitioner accused and he has no objection, in case, petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. He also stated that he has entered into compromise of his own will and there is/was no pressure, as such, upon him to settle the matter amicably. Statement of the complainant is taken on record as Ext.C1. 9. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid submissions having been made by learned counsel for the parties, coupled with the facts that entire amount stands paid to the respondent, this Court is of the view that present matter can be ordered to be compounded in view of the judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar case (supra). 10. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion made herein above, matter is ordered to be compounded and judgments passed by learned Courts below are quashed and set-aside. The petitioner-accused is acquitted of the notice of accusation framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. At this stage, it is informed that the petitioner accused has deposited amount of Rs. 11,000/- before the court below, which may be released to him on filing appropriate application. Since petitioner accused is in jail serving out the sentence, Registry is directed to prepare release warrants so that petitioner be released forthwith. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.