Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jai Kumar vs Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank on 5 October, 2023
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 392 of 2023
Decided on : 5.10.2023
.
Jai Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank
of
...Respondent
___________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
rt
Whether approved for reporting?
________________________________________________
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma
and Ms. Neha Rana,
Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. K.B. Khajuria and Ms.
Rekha Bansal, Advocates.
.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral)
Petitioner Jai Kumar has filed the present petition, against the judgment dated 9.6.2023, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court'), in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2023, ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2023 20:42:23 :::CIS 2 titled as, 'Jai Kumar versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank'.
2. By way of judgment dated 9.6.2023, learned .
Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal.
3. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction, dated 9.11.2022 and order of of sentence, dated 7.12.2022, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog, rt District Mandi (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), in Case No.190 of 2018, titled as, 'The Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank versus Jai Kumar'.
4. By way of judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of three months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 65,000/- to the complainant. In ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2023 20:42:23 :::CIS 3 default of payment of fine, he has been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
.
5. During the pendency of the revision petition, before this Court, as per the stand taken by the parties, the matter has been compromised between the of parties, for a sum of Rs.60,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs 47,000/- has been received by the respondent rt Bank in the Lok Adalat and a sum of Rs. 13,000/- has been deposited by the accused with the learned trial Court.
6. Today, the petitioner, as well as, the Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank are present in person. Petitioner, in his statement, recorded on oath, has stated that the matter has been compromised with the complainant bank, for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- with regard to the dispute, arising out of issuance of cheque, No. 520371, dated 10.8.2018. Accused has deposited a sum of Rs. 13,000/- with the learned trial ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2023 20:42:23 :::CIS 4 Court. According to him, he has no objection, if the same is released in favour of the respondent-Bank.
7. Accused has put forward his indigent .
circumstances to deposit the compounding fee, with a prayer to grant him some time to deposit the compounding fee and to show some leniency.
of According to him, if he fails to deposit the compounding fee, within the time granted by this rt Court, then, he shall surrender before the learned trial Court to undergo the substantive sentence.
8. The Branch Manager of the Respondent-Bank, in his statement, recorded on oath, before this Court, has accepted the statement made by the petitioner. He has prayed that the amount, which the petitioner has deposited before the learned trial Court, be released in his favour. He has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the accused (petitioner) is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2023 20:42:23 :::CIS 59. During pendency of the present revision petition, before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an application, bearing Cr.MP No. .
3747 of 2023, under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., for compounding the offence, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, as the matter has been amicably settled of between the parties.
10. In the said application, factual position, with rt regard to settlement of dispute with the respondent-
Bank has been mentioned.
11. Keeping in view the fact that the parties to the lis have compromised the matter, the present petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above, passed by the learned trial Court, and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, and accused is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, subject to payment of 8% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee. The compounding fee shall be deposited by the accused with the Member Secretary, ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2023 20:42:23 :::CIS 6 H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, within four weeks, from today.
12. It is further clarified that in case of failure to .
deposit the compounding fee, within the prescribed period, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of of sentence, shall revive automatically, and the applicant shall surrender before the learned trial Court rt to serve out the substantive sentence, imposed by the learned trial Court.
13. Accordingly, the present Revision Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.
The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
(Virender Singh) Judge October 5 , 2023 Kalpana ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2023 20:42:23 :::CIS