Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunder Lal Gupta vs State Of Haryana And Another on 15 January, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRR No. 4104 of 2012 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh.
CRR No. 4104 of 2012
Date of Decision:- 15.01.2013.
Sunder Lal Gupta
Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and another Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI.
Present: - Ms.Sharmila Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.D.S.Bishnoi, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J.
Challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 12.12.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment of his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 awarded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Panchkula, was dismissed.
CRR No. 4104 of 2012 2
The revision petition came up for hearing before this court on 19.12.2012. At that time the learned counsel for the petitioner proposed not to challenge the verdict of conviction, therefore, notice of motion was issued for 07.01.2013 with regards to the quantum of sentence only.
Since the service of respondent No.2 could not be effected, therefore, the case was adjourned to 25.01.2013 for issuing fresh notice for the service of respondent No.2.
The petitioner moved Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1842 of 2013 for placing on record the affidavit (Annexure P-1) of the respondent No.2/complainant which came up for hearing today before this court and the same has been allowed and affidavit of the respondent-complainant has been taken on record.
The petitioner also moved Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1843 of 2012 for preponing the case from 25.01.2013 and the said application has also been allowed vide separate order and the case has been preponed for today. Accordingly, the case is being decided at the motion stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
Mr.D.S.Bishnoi has appeared along with respondent No.2. Mr.Bishnoi submits that respondent No.2- CRR No. 4104 of 2012 3 complainant has effected a compromise and has no objection if the petitioner is acquitted or his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
Statement of respondent No.2/complainant has been recorded by this court. Affidavit (Annexure P-1) has been shown to respondent No.2 and he admits its execution by him. In his statement, respondent No.2-complainant has admitted the factum of compromise with the petitioner and has no objection if the present Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though at the time of admission of the Criminal Revision Petition, she did not propose to challenge the conviction of the petitioner and prayed for reduction of sentence but keeping in view the changed scenario and the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner may be acquitted on the basis of compromise.
Heard.
The respondent has appeared in person along with his counsel, Shri D.S.Bishnoi, and admits the factum of compromise. His statement has also been recorded separately. Respondent No.2-complainant has admitted the CRR No. 4104 of 2012 4 execution of the affidavit (Annexure P-1) produced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The whole amount due towards the petitioner has been paid to respondent No.2. Since the notice of motion was issued with regard to the quantum of sentence, therefore, the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner for setting aside the judgment of conviction at this stage is not sustainable. Since she had proposed not to challenge the conviction, therefore, the notice of motion was issued with regard to the quantum of sentence only. The petitioner was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three months besides payment of fine of Rs.1,30,000/-, therefore, the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine is set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of fine was not deposited before the learned trial court or the Appellate Court. There is no necessity for passing the order to refund of fine to the petitioner.
Disposed of in the above terms. The petitioner be set at liberty at once if not required in any other case.
(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) 15.01.2013 Judge Anoop CRR No. 4104 of 2012 5