Alka Punj vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

As agreed between the parties, the defect as pointed out by the Registry is overruled.

A Criminal Revision No.207 of 2019 'Alka Punj vs. State of Uttarakhand and another' the same was arising out of the judgment and order dated 26.3.2019 as passed by the learned Sessions Judge-VIII, Dehradun, in Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2016 'Alka Punj vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others', which in turn was affirming the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 07.11.2016, as rendered in Complaint Case No. 1707 of 2013 'Anjali Mittal vs. State of Uttarakhand'. As a consequence of the determination of the liability by the courts below in the proceedings, which was arising out of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the learned Trial Court by the judgment of conviction has directed the revisionist and sentenced to undergo a sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment and a penalty of Rs. 6,60,000/- has been imposed upon the revisionist, out of which Rs. 10,000/- was to be remitted in the State exchequer.

Other connected revision being Criminal Revision No.209 of 2019 'Alka Punj vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another' has been preferred by the revisionist challenging the judgment dated 26.3.2019 as rendered by the Sessions Judge-VIII, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2016 'Alka Punj vs. State of Uttarakhand', which in turn was affirming the judgment dated 7.11.2016 as rendered by the Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 1706 of 2013 'Ajay Mittal vs. Alka Punj', which was arising out of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As a consequence of the judgment of conviction, the revisionist was sentenced to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment and a penalty of Rs. 7,20,000/- was imposed upon him, out of which Rs. 10,000/- was to be remitted in the State exchequer.

It is an admitted case by the parties to both the criminal revisions that out of the aforesaid respective liabilities determined by the Trial Court and subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Court, the revisionist has already deposited fifty percent of the amount of the total liability thus determined by the courts below. The remaining fifty percent of the said liability thus determined is yet to be paid by the revisionist to respondent no. 2.

When the revision was taken up today, both the parties to the criminal revision are present before this court and who have been duly identified by their respective counsels, the revisionist makes a statement that out of the total amount of liability as settled by both the courts below out of an amount of Rs. 6,60,000/-, which is the subject matter in Revision No. 207 of 2019, and Rs. 7,20,000/-, which is the subject matter of Revision No. 208 of 2019, the fifty percent of the said determined amount, which has been deposited before the District and Sessions Judge, that is being directed to be remitted to the respondent no. 2, by the District Judge, Dehradun, within a period of three weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

As far as the balance amount of the liability settled by both the courts below, that is being remitted by the revisionist by issuance of a demand draft with the following particulars:

(i) Draft No. 468 dated 14.10.2019 for an amount of Rs. 3,55,000/- as drawn from ICICI Bank.

(ii) Another demand draft No. 469 dated 14.10.2019 for an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- drawn from ICICI Bank is being handed over to the respondent no. 2 in presence of their counsels.

Both drafts have been received by respondent before the court.

The amount thus referred above was inclusive of the compensation over and above the amount of liability determined by impugned orders, as agreed to be paid by the revisionist to the respondent no. 2 including the amount of Rs. 10,000/- each, which was to be paid and deposited in the State exchequer.

This revision is being closed under the aforesaid conditions of remittance of the amount and in addition thereto a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in total, i.e. equivalent to Rs. 50,000/- in each of the two revisions has been handed to respondent no. 2 in cash presence of their respective counsels in the court itself.

In view of the aforesaid determination and the settlement of the liability, which has been arrived at by the revisionist and respondent no. 2, and which has been paid to the respondent, the revision stands closed, and as a consequence thereto, the judgments of conviction rendered by both the courts below impugned in the present revisions, are hereby quashed.

However, there would be no order as to cost.