Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 18 (HP)

Suresh Zintoo v. Dinesh Kumar

2019-01-02

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
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 cheque No. 274760 dated 8.4.2011 amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- handed over by the petitioner to the respondent/complainant in order to discharge his liability, had been dishonoured. 2. The complaint was decided in favour of the respondent/complainant by the learned trial Magistrate and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/- to the complainant. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 6.4.2015/8.4.2015, though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P., however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 27.02.2018, 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 balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- stands deposited on 01.01.2019 in the account of the respondent as per the receipt produced in the Court. This statement of learned counsel for the petitioner is not disputed by Ms. Reena Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent, who stated that the entire amount has been received by his client. Since, the petitioner has deposited not only the compensation amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- as was directed by the trial Magistrate, but an additional amount of Rs. 20,000/-, 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. 5. 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 7 years and has not only deposited the compensation amount of Rs. 5. 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 7 years and has not only deposited the compensation amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- but has also deposited an additional amount of Rs. 20,000/-. 6. 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. 1,75,000/- as was directed by the trial Magistrate with an additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- which stands deposited/paid by the petitioner. The learned trial Court is also directed to release the amount of Rs. 87,500/-, deposited in this case by the petitioner to the complainant/respondent, if not already released, as per procedure. 7. With these observations, the revision petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.