Himachal Pradesh High Court
Brij Lal Thakur vs Puran Chand on 17 April, 2017
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 127 of 2016
Date of Decision: 17th April, 2017
.
________________________________________________________________
Brij Lal Thakur ..... Petitioner.
Versus
Puran Chand .... Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr.P.S.Goverdhan, Advocate.
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral)
Present Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment dated 4.5.2016, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P, in Criminal Appeal No. 18-S/10 of 2015, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.5.2015, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., in complaint No. 40/3 of 2012, whereby learned trial Court while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2017 23:58:10 :::HCHP...2...
for six months and to pay compensation amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- alongwith 9% simple interest per annum.
.
2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that the respondent(hereinafter referred to as the complainant), filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., alleging therein that in the month of November, 2011, accused requested him to advance loan of Rs.4,50,000/-in order to clear bank liability. Accordingly, complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 4, 50,000/- to the accused in the month of November, 2011. Complainant further alleged that on 18th March, 2012, he requested the accused to return the aforesaid amount but accused issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 4, 50,000/- in favour of the complainant drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Didag in order to discharge his liability.
However, fact remains that on presentation, the cheque was dishonored on account of "insufficient funds" in the account of the accused. Complainant on receipt of memo received from the bank, got issued legal notice to the accused calling upon him to make the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice, but since the accused failed to make the payment good in terms of the legal notice, complainant ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2017 23:58:10 :::HCHP ...3...
was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the appropriate Court of law.
.
3. Subsequently, learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, came to the conclusion that the present petitioner-accused is guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per the description already given supra.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, present petitioner-accused filed an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, which came to be registered as Cr. Appeal No.18- S/10 of 2015, however fact remains that same was dismissed, as a result of which, the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused approached this Court by way of instant Criminal Revision Petition, praying for his acquittal after quashing and setting-aside the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below.
5. On 10th April, 2017, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated at the Bar that petitioner-accused has already deposited the entire compensation amount of Rs.5,78,250/- in terms of the judgment passed by the learned ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2017 23:58:10 :::HCHP ...4...
trial Court and as such, instant matter can be ordered to be compounded in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex .
Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.(2010)5 SCC
663. However, on that date, learned counsel representing the respondent sought time to have instructions in the matter.
6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, learned counsel representing the respondent confirmed that entire amount of Rs. 5, 78,250/- stands deposited before the learned Court below and as such, he has no objection in case the present matter is ordered to be compounded in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu case supra. However, learned counsel representing the respondent stated that since complainant was put to unnecessary harassment by the petitioner-accused and for realization of amount, he was made to approach appropriate Court of law unnecessarily and as such, the complainant-
respondent is required to be compensated adequately.
7. With a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the statements having been made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court also perused the report submitted by the learned court below, perusal whereof clearly suggests that petitioner-accused had deposited an amount of Rs. 3, 78, 250/- on account of compensation in terms of the order dated 30.5.2016 passed by this Court while suspending the ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2017 23:58:10 :::HCHP ...5...
substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. Record further reveals that petitioner-accused had already deposited .
Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of compensation awarded by the learned court below on 16.6.2015.
8. It is ample clear from the report referred above, that entire compensation amount of Rs. 5,78,250/- stands deposited with the learned court below. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid statement having been made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court deems it fit to compound the instant case in terms of Damodar S. Prabhu case supra, subject to petitioner-accused paying/ depositing Rs. 10,000/- as cost payable to the complainant within three weeks. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction recorded by the Courts below are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge so framed against him under Section 138 of the Act.
The bail bonds of the accused are discharged. However, it is made clear that in case the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,000/- is not paid to the complainant within stipulated time, the complainant is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner-accused for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court.
9. Needless to say, Courts below shall release the deposited amount in favour of the complainant forthwith on filing of application by the complainant.
::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2017 23:58:10 :::HCHP...6...
The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.
.
(Sandeep Sharma)
April 17, 2017 Judge
(shankar)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2017 23:58:10 :::HCHP