Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 7 (JHR)

Kumar Steel Traders v. State of Jharkhand

2017-01-03

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : 1. Although vide order dated 19.10.2016 a composite order was passed in Criminal Revision No. 1070 of 2008 as well as in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2009 but since the cases in which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced are different as such the order dated 19.10.2016 shall relate only to Criminal Revision No. 1070 of 2009. Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2009 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This application is directed against the order dated 29.01.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No. 715 of 2003 (T. R. No. 689 of 2007) by which the petitioners have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and have been directed to undergo S.I. for three months each as also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,07,675/-. A further challenge has been made to the order dated 25.09.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2007 by which the judgment passed by the learned trial court has been affirmed. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after the judgment of conviction was sustained by the learned appellate court, the parties have entered into a compromise for which he has referred to I. A. No. 249 of 2014 which is by way of a joint compromise petition. It has been submitted that since the petitioners are not in a position to make payment of the amount in question, by way of mercy, the matter has been settled outside the court and the parties have decided to bury the dispute which was existing between them. 5. Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and has stated that taking a considerate view of the fact that the petitioners are not in a position to return back the amount in question, the opposite party no. 2 has settled the dispute with the petitioners and therefore he does not have any objection if the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the petitioners is set aside. 6. 2 has settled the dispute with the petitioners and therefore he does not have any objection if the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the petitioners is set aside. 6. The entire basis of challenge which has been made to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as well as the appellate judgment affirming such conviction is the compromise which has been effected between both the parties. Perusal of the joint compromise petition which is by way of I. A. No. 249 of 2014 reveals that the petitioners are not in a position to pay the amount and accordingly, both the parties have settled the dispute outside the court and have mutually agreed to end the litigation. Since the good relations have been restored between the parties which was a precursor in entering into a compromise and since the conviction is only under Section 138 of N. I. Act, it would be in the interest of justice that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as well as the order affirming the said judgment by the appellate court be set aside. 7. Accordingly, in view of the above, this application is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 29.01.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No. 715 of 2003 (T. R. No. 689 of 2007) as well as the appellate order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2007 by the Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur are hereby set aside. 8. Pending I. As. also stand disposed of. Application allowed.