Bishan Kumar Das @ Anshu vs State of Jharkhand

Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Pursuant to the order dated 25.04.2016 both the parties have remained present before this Court in person.

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.

This revision is directed against the order dated 01.06.2015 passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum in Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2015 whereby and where under the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 17.01.2015 passed by Sri Parth Sarthi Ghosh, learned SDJM, Sadar, Chaibasa in C/1 Case No. 05 of 2013 convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and directing him to undergo sentence for simple imprisonment for six months along with a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the opposite party no. 2 has been dismissed.

A complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 on the allegation that a friendly loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- was advanced to the petitioner but even in spite of repeated assurance the amount was not returned back and ultimately three account payee cheques dated 01.10.2012 were issued in favour of the opposite party no. 2. On deposit of the cheques the same were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. After giving a legal notice and since the petitioner did not make payment of the loan amount the complaint case was instituted.

Upon conducting an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance was taken under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After conclusion of the trial vide judgment dated 17.01.2015 the learned S.D.J.M, Sadar, Chaibasa in C/1 Case No. 5 of 2013 was pleased to convict the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months along with a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Against the said order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sadar Chaibasa the petitioner has preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2015 which was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum vide order dated 01.06.2015.

It has been submitted, at the outset, by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised and the entire amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been returned back to the informant. Learned counsel also submits that pursuant to the compromise a joint compromise petition has been filed vide I. A. No. 6839 of 2015.

Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, has accepted the factum of the compromise and has submitted that the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner and, therefore, the opposite party no. 2 does not have any grievance against the petitioner.

Considering the fact that the matter has already been compromised and the amount has already been returned back to the opposite party no. 2 which is apparent from the interlocutory application filed by way of joint compromise petition, while affirming the order passed by the leaned appellate court confirming the conviction of the petitioner by the learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Chaibasa the sentence part is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall not undergo the sentence as has been directed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Chaibasa.

This application is disposed of in terms aforesaid.

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

The personal appearance of the petitioner as well as the opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with.