Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 935 (HP)

Dev Kumar Saini v. Punjab And Sindh Bank, Mandi

2018-05-21

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —Looking to the nature of order, I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to delve into the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the complainant/respondent instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ''Act'') against the petitioner on the allegations that the cheque of Rs.14, 000/- dated 15.1.2007 and another cheque of Rs.16, 000/- dated 6.3.2007 handed over by the petitioner to the respondent in order to discharge his liability, had been dishonoured. 2. The complaint was decided in favour of the respondent by the learned trial Magistrate and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.60, 000/- to the complainant i.e. double of the cheque amount. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 11.4.2014, though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II) , Mandi, H.P., however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.11.2017, constraining the petitioner to file the instant revision petition. 4. Today, when the case was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the entire compensation amount of Rs. 60, 000/- (Rs.15, 000/- deposited with the learned trial Court, + Rs.20, 000/- deposited in the Registry of this Court and a cheque of Rs.25, 000/- handed over today to learned counsel for the respondent in the open Court) has been paid to the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the same. 5. It is not in dispute that the entire compensation amount now stands deposited either before this Court or before the learned trial Court. The amount so deposited is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant-respondent as per procedure. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the same. 5. It is not in dispute that the entire compensation amount now stands deposited either before this Court or before the learned trial Court. The amount so deposited is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant-respondent as per procedure. 6. Since, the petitioner has already deposited not only the cheque amount, but has deposited double of the cheque amount as directed by the learned trial Court, therefore, the matter can be given quietus in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Nagpal versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another , (2018) 3 SCC 249 and P.Ramadas versus State of Kerala and another , (2018) 3 SCC 287 , wherein it is clearly held that waiver of imprisonment in lieu of payment of additional compensation is permissible, though under exceptional circumstances. 7. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, it would be noticed that even in this case, the circumstances are exceptional inasmuch as the petitioner is facing the pangs and suffered agony of protracted trial and thereafter appeal/revision for the last nearly 5 years and has deposited the entire compensation amount of Rs. 60, 000/-. 8. In view of the above discussion, it is ordered that the impugned substantive sentence of simple imprisonment imposed in this case shall stand modified and substituted in lieu of the amount of compensation of Rs.60, 000/- that already stands deposited by the petitioner. 9. With these observations, the revision petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.