Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 625 (HP)

Taro Devi v. State Bank Of Patiala

2019-05-27

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Pursuant to the non bailable warrants issued by this Court, the petitioner has been produced in the custody of ASI Ramesh Chand I/C PP Tihra, P. S. Dharampur and L/C Neelam Kaur No. 813, P. S. Sarkaghat. 2. 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 stated that the complainant/respondent instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. ''Act'') against the petitioner on the allegations that petitioner approached respondent bank for grant of term loan in the sum of Rs.8,10,000/- for the purchase of Tipper Truck. The loan was sanctioned and the entire amount was disbursed. The accused had agreed to re-pay the term loan at the rate of interest of 14% per annum with monthly rests and undertook to return the loan with 60 monthly installments of Rs.20,250/- beginning from January, 2009 and the accused and her husband had defaulted the payment to the tune of Rs.1,67,000/- on 30.11.2010 and further issued a cheque No. 956931, dated 01.12.2010 of the defaulted amount from their Saving Account, which was dishonoured for insufficient funds and thereafter the Bank issued a legal notice on 02.12.2010 to the petitioner/accused and despite legal notice the petitioner/accused failed to make the payment of cheque amount, hence, the complaint was filed in the Court. The complaint was decided in favour of respondent-Bank by the learned trial Magistrate and the petitioner/accused was sentenced to simple imprisonment for twelve months and directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant. In default of payment of compensation, the petitioner/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 23.01.2015/29.01.2015, though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 25.05.2018, constraining the petitioner to file the instant revision petition. 4. Today, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the respondent-Bank. Earlier to that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- had been deposited before the trial Court and another sum of Rs.50,000/- had been deposited with the respondent Bank. 5. 4. Today, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the respondent-Bank. Earlier to that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- had been deposited before the trial Court and another sum of Rs.50,000/- had been deposited with the respondent Bank. 5. Since, the entire amount stands deposited/paid, the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 6. Since, the petitioner has already paid entire compensation amount to the respondent/complainant, 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 9 years and has paid full and final payment to the respondent and nothing remains due from the petitioner 8. In view of the above discussion, it is ordered that the impugned substantive sentence of simple imprisonment of twelve months imposed in this case shall stand modified and substituted in lieu of the amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- which has been paid/deposited by the petitioner. The amount deposited before the learned Trial Court be released in favour of the respondent-Bank on remitting its bank account before the concerned Court. 9. With these observations, the revision petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any. Copy dasti.