Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 785 (HP)

Surender Dhalta v. Roshan Lal

2017-07-10

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - Instant criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC, has been filed against judgment dated 28.2.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, HP in Criminal Appeal No. 90-S/10 of 2012, affirming judgment dated 28.6.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. I, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Case No. 9/3 of 2010, whereby petitioner-accused has been held guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-. 2. Briefly stated the facts, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petitioner accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rorhu, alleging therein that he had advanced a loan of Rs. 2.00 Lakh to the petitioner-accused on his demand to meet his marriage expenses. Petitioner-accused, with a view to discharge his liability issued two cheques bearing No. 4567715 and 4567725 both amounting to Rs. 1.00 Lakh each. However, the fact remains that Cheque bearing No. 4567715 dated 15.8.2009, was dishonoured on account of ''insufficient funds'', as a result of which, respondent complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings against petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act ibid. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced by the respondent complainant, held petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act ibid and convicted and sentenced him as described above. Petitioner-accused being aggrieved preferred an appeal before Sessions Judge, Shimla, which was registered as Cr. Appeal No. 90-S/10 of 2012. However, the fact remains that the appeal was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla. In the aforesaid background, petitioner approached this Court, by way of present criminal revision, seeking his acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction passed by both the learned Courts below. 3. On 29.5.2017, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated that petitioner is ready and willing to get the matter compromised by paying entire amount in terms of judgment passed by learned trial Court. 4. Sequel to order dated 29.5.2017, petitioner-accused has come present, whereas respondent is not present. Mr. 3. On 29.5.2017, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated that petitioner is ready and willing to get the matter compromised by paying entire amount in terms of judgment passed by learned trial Court. 4. Sequel to order dated 29.5.2017, petitioner-accused has come present, whereas respondent is not present. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, advocate, representing respondent No.1 states that he has complete instruction to get this matter compounded in terms of judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 , in case entire amount, in terms of judgment of learned trial Court is paid to the complainant. 5. Today, during the proceedings of the case before this Court, Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on the instructions imparted to him by his client, who is present in the Court, stated that an amount of Rs. 45,000/- stands deposited before the learned trial Court, whereas remaining amount of Rs. 80,000/- shall be paid to the respondent-complainant today in the Court itself. 6. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant stated that he has instructions that in case amount as directed by learned trial Court is released in favour of the complainant, petitioner may be acquitted of the charges framed under Section 138 of the Act. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner has handed over Rs. 80,000/- to Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant, in the Court itself, towards balance payment of amount. 7. Since entire amount stands paid to the respondent complainant, the petition is allowed. 8. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court (supra), judgments of conviction passed by learned courts below are set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Amount, if any, lying deposited with the trial Court/this Court, may be released in favour of the complainant, on making appropriate application for the purpose, forthwith. 9. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any furnished by the petitioner accused, are discharged.