Himachal Pradesh High Court
Devender Singh Thakur vs Subash Negi on 19 September, 2017
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 164 of 2014.
Date of decision: 19.9.2017
.
Devender Singh Thakur ...Petitioner
Versus
Subash Negi .... Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?.1
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. G.S.Rathore, Advocate.
Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)
This petition is directed against the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-(II), Shimla, Camp at Rohru, H.P. rendered in Cr. Appeal No. RBT-23-R/10 of 2013/2011 whereby he affirmed the judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Rohru, District Shimla, convicting and sentencing the accused/petitioner, for his committing offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. During the pendency of the revision petition before this Court, the respondent/complainant in his recorded statement on Whet her t he r epor t er s of t he l ocal paper s may be al l owed t o see t he Judgment ? .
::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 12:36:36 :::HCHP 2oath duly reduced into writing and signatured by him, has, therein made a disclosure qua his receiving today in Court a sum of Rs.64,000/- from the accused, towards part satisfaction of the .
amount comprised in the dishonored Negotiable instrument. He has besides stated on oath that a sum of Rs.26,000/- stands deposited before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned. Accordingly, he prays that in case permission, to withdraw from the Court aforesaid, the aforestated amounts, stands accorded to him, thereupon, the offence constituted by the dishonour of Negotiable Instrument be ordered to be compounded. Moreover, he has also stated on oath that the Revision Petition be also accepted and revisionist/accused be acquitted of the charge. Also the statement of the petitioner/accused has been recorded, wherein, he has accepted the communications made by the respondent/complainant. He has also in his statement portrayed his acquiescence to a sum of Rs.26,000/-, which stands deposited by him before the learned trial Court concerned, being ordered to be released in favour of the respondent/complainant.
3. Consequently, while accepting the statement(s) on oath of the respondent, the offence constituted by the dishonour of Negotiable Instrument is ordered to be compounded. In sequel, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned judgement is ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 12:36:36 :::HCHP 3 quashed and set-aside. The revisionist/accused is acquitted of the charge. The learned Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to, on receipt of copy of this order, release in favour of the .
complainant/respondent a sum of Rs.26,000/- lying deposited in the Nazarat Branch of the aforesaid Court.
4. Though it is imperative for this Court, to as a condition precedent, for recording a binding order for composition of offence(s) arising out of dishonour of Negotiable Instruments Act, impose upon the convict, penalty equivalent to 15%, of the amount comprised in the dishonoured negotiable instrument(s). However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the accused has no source of income. Consequently, in view of the mandate of the Apex Court, occurring in a judgement titled as Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Vs. Prateek Jain and another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 690, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court, has on evident display of indigent circumstances, of the convict, permitted High Courts, to exempt/waive imposition, of penalty in a sum quantified, at 15% of the amount constituted in the dishonoured Negotiable Instrument Act. Consequently, accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the convict, of, indigent circumstances besetting the accused, thereupon this Court is constrained to impose upon him penalty quantified at 10% of the sum comprised in the ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 12:36:36 :::HCHP 4 dishonoured negotiable instrument, deposit whereof within four weeks, is a condition precedent for the orders' taking effect.
5. In view of the above directions, the instant petition as .
well as the pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.
19th September, 2017 (Sureshwar Thakur)
™ Judge
r to
::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 12:36:36 :::HCHP