Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shakuntala Timber House vs The Punjab National Bank on 8 March, 2022
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 8th DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.140 of 2021
Between:-
SHAKUNTALA TIMBER HOUSE,
THROUGH PROPRIETOR
SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI,
W/O SH. CHAMAN LAL,
R/O VILLAGE BAUTINALA,
P.O. ROHRU, TEHSIL ROHRU,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, .....PETITIONER
HIMACHAL PRADESH
(BY SH.RAKESH THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
BRANCH AT ROHRU, TEHSIL ROHRU,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P. THROUGH ITS
BRANCH MANAGER.
...RESPONDENT
(BY MS.JYOTI CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE,
VICE SH.SANJAY DALMIA, ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting?
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
passed the following:
ORDER
Present Revision Petition has been filed, assailing judgment dated 27.11.2020, passed by learned Sessions Judge (Forests) Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.35-R/10 of 2019, titled as Shakuntala Timber House vs. The Punjab National Bank, whereby judgment/order dated 01.10.2019/25.10.2019, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2022 20:12:19 :::CIS 2 Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Case No.:RBT 452-3/19 of 2018, titled as The Punjab National Bank vs. Shakuntala Timber House, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay .
compensation of `5,20,000/- to the complainant-Bank, has been affirmed.
2. Statements of Shri Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Jyoti Chauhan, Advocate, appearing under instructions of Mr.Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate, original counsel for the respondent-Bank, have been recorded, separately, and placed on the file.
3. In her statement, Ms.Jyoti Chauhan, learned counsel, has stated that respondent-Bank is being represented by Mr.Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate, and she is representing the respondent, under instructions of learned original counsel and is duly authorized to make statement on behalf of the respondent- Bank. She has also stated that as per instructions, petitioner has made payment of entire amount to the respondent-Bank and, therefore, respondent-Bank has issued No Dues Certificate in favour of the petitioner and has instructions to withdraw the complaint to compound the case and, therefore, she has prayed on behalf of the respondent-Bank to permit the Bank to withdraw the complaint for compounding the case and further that her deposition is strictly in consonance with instructions imparted to her by the respondent-Bank through learned original counsel. ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2022 20:12:19 :::CIS 3
4. In his statement, Mr.Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he has been duly authorized to make statement on behalf of the petitioner and has instructions to say that petitioner has paid entire amount to respondent-Bank .
and respondent-Bank has issued No Dues Certificate and has also agreed to compound the case. He has endorsed the statement made on behalf of the respondent-Bank, recorded today in the Court. He has also stated that No Dues Certificate issued by the respondent-Bank has also been placed on record with Cr.M.P. No.470 of 2022. He has further stated that petitioner-Shakuntala Devi has been taken into custody for serving sentence imposed upon her vide impugned judgment and she is in Jail since 27.02.2022 and, therefore, he has also instructions to pray for her release and also exemption from paying compounding fee and further that his deposition is strictly in terms of instructions imparted to him by the petitioner.
5. Consequently, complainant-respondent-Bank is permitted to withdraw the complaint and matter is compounded and complaint arising out of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is permitted to be withdrawn and judgments of conviction and sentence passed by learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. Petitioner- accused is acquitted of the accusation framed against her.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is facing poor financial condition and is not able to pay compounding fee @ 15% and, therefore, a prayer has been made ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2022 20:12:19 :::CIS 4 by learned counsel for exempting the compounding fee, keeping in view ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (5) SCC 663, as clarified in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Vs. Prateek Jain .
and another 2014 (10) SCC 690.
7. Considering the fact that petitioner has been taken into custody for serving sentence imposed upon her vide impugned judgment and she is in Jail since 27.02.2022, I find that it is a fit case for exempting the compounding fee and accordingly the same is exempted.
8. In view of acquittal of petitioner, she be released forthwith. Release warrants be prepared accordingly and be sent to Model Central Jail, Kanda.
9. Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any.
10. Petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify it from Website of the High Court.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
March 8, 2022 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2022 20:12:19 :::CIS